Preamble

Mr. SPEAKER resumed the Chair at Ten o'clock a.m.

IMPORT DEPOSITS

Question again proposed.

Sir Keith Joseph: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. There appears to be no representative of the Government present. Are we to assume that the Whip will answer the questions which we shall be putting?

Mr. Speaker: It is not a matter for the Chair. I imagine the Minister is coming. Mr. Leadbitter.

10.01 a.m.

Mr. Ted Leadbitter: Mr. Ted Leadbitter (The Hartlepools) rose—

Sir Gerald Nabarro: Always late on parade.

Mr. Leadbitter: Now that the Minister is here, perhaps the Opposition will allow us to get on. After yesterday's hectic debate we are addressing ourselves to a Resolution. Yesterday the Minister made it quite clear that the conditions involved in the preparation of this Resolution restricted the debate in that we could not talk in terms of deductions, but that there were facilities to provide at some future point for additions to the list.
Yesterday there was a major argument during the debate on the economic position when the Leader of the Opposition, speaking about import deposits, said:
On the question of import deposits, I would like to put some questions to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. We have sometimes asked him to examine this proposal and tell the House what were the pros and cons of having import deposits.
I take it from that that there was, at some point, a firm conviction that import deposits were a formula to deal with the control of imports acceptable to the Opposition.

Sir G. Nabarro: The hon. Gentleman must not put words into our mouths. It is possible that during the days of a Tory Government there were machinations inside the Treasury or elsewhere as to import deposits, or similar manoeuvres, but it has never been debated in this House nor by my party, in Committee

or elsewhere. I disclaim all knowledge or responsibility for it.

Mr. Leadbitter: The hon. Gentleman has not taken the point. Yesterday the right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) and the right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) did not deny support for this form of import control. My hon. Friend made it clear that this was the lesser of a number of evils. He would not be persuaded to oppose the principle. Yesterday the Leader of the Opposition said:
We have sometimes asked him to examine this proposal.
The hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) should try to contain himself and allow an hon. Member to pursue his speech.
But I am not persuaded that import deposits will prove to be the right answer. They involve a great deal of supposition and I doubt whether it will ease the basic malaise of the country. Because there is a six-month "carryover" requiring 50 per cent. of the cost of the goods to be deposited, it will give the Government an interest-free gift of considerable value. The real question is whether it will control the inflow of imports. I doubt whether there will be any more than a marginal advantage.

Sir Cyril Osborne: The hon. Member spoke of a "gift" free of interest. It is not a gift, it is a loan.

Mr. Leadbitter: I think that "loan" might be better in this context. The hon. Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne) is quite right and I am pleased that he is following my speech with his normal care.
We are basically concerned with how to solve the problem of imbalance between imports and exports. It is no good the House satisfying itself in the short term of an advantage, financial or otherwise, which does not tackle the long-term problem of establishing equilibrium between import and export trading. There were only seven occasions in the last 30 or 40 years when we had a reasonable balance on the balance of trade as distinct from the balance of payments.
I ask the Minister not to persuade us that this solution, like many others we have tried, is necessarily one in which we can have complete faith. It is wrong


to mislead the country into thinking that this is the answer to the problem. One of the Government's weaknesses has been in trying to persuade people that a solution based upon orthodox economic thinking is the answer to a problem which clearly must find its solution elsewhere, not necessarily with clever Resolutions placed before the House.
I am interested in the development areas in this context and I am very much Aware that the kind of answers I receive when asking about the application of S.E.T. and the regional employment premium to these areas—which was "we cannot discriminate"—will be given when I ask questions about import deposits. In other words, if I suggest to the Minister that we want special treatment for the development areas, the answer is more than likely to be "we cannot discriminate." I take the point, but the problem is there very strongly in the development areas.
In yesterday's debates the Leader of the Opposition said:
The import deposits, too, will greatly damage the smaller firms because they are the ones who are without the liquid resources of which the Government contantly talk.…" [Official Report, 25th November, 1968; Vol. 774, c. 40–1.]
The House must not try to make political points on such an occasion. Is there a worry about the small or medium firm, and will that worry be any larger in development areas, where there has already been a good deal of capital investment? The answer is "Yes".
I have an instance which came to me yesterday, of a firm which some time ago ordered from Germany a machine tool which was to produce springs for the motor industry, Fords in particular. The object of the exercise was to take advantage of the need to restrict imports. Such springs are normally imported from America, and the firm thought it could develop a market in this very lucrative section of the motor trade. The firm's representatives state that the firm cannot get credit, because the tool will be delivered after 27th November—in fact, within the next fortnight.
Two questions arise. First, are we, because of the Resolution, to create difficulties which such firms could not have foreseen when they placed orders? This firm will be obliged to pay a deposit of

about£3,000 on the import of this tool. Because of the Chancellor's measures, it cannot get the credit. Firms could not have foreseen this situation, and some will have their equipment impounded or returned to the exporting country. Must there be some other arrangement arrived at between buyer and seller of such a nature that the time factor will militate against the economic advantages which firms sought when placing orders?
The Minister would help the House if he could assure us that, where equipment was ordered before 27th November and is likely to be delivered within the next six months, some form of credit facility will be made available which will not destroy the Government's main objectives.
Britain has an investment in many industries, particularly medium and small-sized industries—namely, the type of investment which persuaded these industries to move from their parent anchorage to development areas. We cannot afford either the social loss which is ultimately involved in terms of employment or the economic loss if firms which do not have the liquidity to meet the restriction on credit facilities have to restrict their manufacturing capacity or close down.
On the second and more complex part of my case, will the Minister give an assurance that he will consult with the greatest of care and without prejudice? We are prone to think that once a Government have made decisions, the areas of discussion and consultation are restricted. Although the objectives behind the Resolution are acceptable in general terms, I ask the Minister to consult industry and the Economic Planning Councils so as to remove difficulties, as far as practicable, in the first six months of the operation of the scheme.

Sir C. Osborne: Is the hon. Gentleman's plea that the Minister should exempt orders already placed, especially for machine tools, which are vital, or does the hon. Gentleman want the scheme postponed for six months?

Mr. Leadbitter: It would be undesirable to add to the anomalies which will already arise in this scheme, not dissimilar to those which I and many other hon. Members foresaw in relation to S.E.T. If exemptions cannot be made—they would add to the anomalies—I ask


for a holding operation. If small and medium-sized firms make it abundantly clear to the Minister that they have not got the liquid assets to meet the deposit, I ask the Minister to consult, in the interests of the nation, the relevant bodies with a view to relieving the firms from the obligation to make the deposits or with a view to their making smaller deposits. In my experience, an acceptable formula can always be worked out. The Minister said yesterday that there is an open end to the Motion. We can widen it and add to the principle of extending the list of exemptions the principle of a holding operation in cases of hardship.
Britain must not think that when politicians mouth solutions the right path has necessarily been indicated. Britain must face the need to understand the extent to which we have been restricted in our manoeuvrability to solve our economic problems. I am appalled at one of the conditions of the International Monetary Fund, which grew out of the Bretton Woods agreement, namely, that Britain, with all its peculiar and complex problems, which are different in nature and character from those afflicting the other 60 affiliated bodies to the I.M.F.—incidentally, those not affiliated include Switzerland and several Eastern bloc countries—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has been quite on the target so far. He must not, however, widen the debate. We cannot go over yesterday's economic debate. The hon. Gentleman himself pointed out that we are debating a Resolution.

Mr. Leadbitter: I accept your ruling, Sir, which came just as I was about to conclude my point. I am appalled that we have to introduce a scheme like this when the international conditions are such that we are, by agreement, limited in terms of import quotas and export subsidies. Britain—traditionally, geographically, and in terms of population and industry—is very different from any other country. The imposition of import duties is not a solution of our own choosing. Therefore, it cannot be the best solution to our problems.
I hope that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor and my hon. Friend the

Financial Secretary, who understand far better than I the implications of what I am saying within such limited terms of reference, will remember that we are anxious, not to question import deposits too much at this stage, but to convince the Government of the need to express in the international forums of trade—G.A.T.T., the E.F.T.A. countries, the I.M.F., and the International Bank—the fact that we have a special problem, the solution to which those bodies cannot and should not dictate to us. We know best how to do our own business.
Although I am not opposed to the import deposits scheme provided for here, I hope, therefore, that my hon. Friend will note the three points which I have made. First, will he consider the plea I put regarding firms which ordered before 27th November and will have their equipment delivered just after but which have limited means to meet the deposit? Second, will he bear in mind the small and medium-size firms in development areas and elsewhere which might need help because of hardship? Third, will he recognise the need to grasp the means whereby we can deal with our problems and, for once, allow Parliament to provide solutions of our own choosing, not those dictated from abroad?

10.20 a.m.

Mr. John Nott: Unlike some of my hon. Friends who spoke last night, I do not wish to make any changes in the Resolution, and neither do I wish to relieve or reduce, as the hon. Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. Leadbitter) does, some of the burdens which will be put upon companies. I wish to discard the wretched Resolution altogether. It will do great damage to this country in the medium and longer term.
Import deposits are a highly complicated subject and no one can be certain what the effect of the Resolution will be, but my conclusion is that, although it will have immediate beneficial effects on the balance of payments—I do not doubt that—it will have highly adverse medium and long-term effects on the economy which will cancel out any opportunity we ever had of moving into an export-led boom. Even worse, its effect will be to shift our productive capacity in Britain away from exporting into domestic production.
As this is a narrow debate on the Motion, not the Second Reading of the Bill, I shall not concentrate on the most obvious objections to the Resolution. The hon. Member for The Hartlepools listed some of them. We are a trading nation more dependent on the growth of world trade than any other, and a scheme of this kind which in any way restricts world trade must hurt us more than it hurts practically any other country. Second, any restriction of this kind must lead to some form of retaliation from other countries. I am sure that the Financial Secretary and Ministers at the Board of Trade recognise that there will be some retaliation, though how much it is difficult to say.
There is no doubt that deposits are listed in the G.A.T.T. list of barriers which should be eliminated. There is likely io be some semantic argument about whether these deposits are to be deemed duties or "temporarily frozen funds." I believe that this is one of the gimmicks which the Government are working out in an effort to avoid their E.F.T.A. obligations. But, as one of the E.F.T.A. Ministers said the other day:
Britain's introduction of special deposits is part of an international movement to exploit the small print of trade agreements, in which the only rule is that you do what you can get away with.…
The Government are making much too frequent attempts to get away from, or absolve themselves from, those international agreements.
Likewise, I am told that the reason why the Japanese abandoned a similar scheme which they ran for many years was that it was against the I.M.F. rules on current transactions. Thus, although the Government may twist and turn, saying that the scheme underlying this Motion does not evade our obligations to E.F.T.A. and the I.M.F., it is a semantic argument and they must know only too well that the spirit of the E.F.T.A. agreement, the spirit of the G.A.T.T. and the spirit of our obligations to the I.M.F. are being transgressed.
In addition to those fundamental objections, there is the fact that the United States is entering a period of greater protectionism, and what the Government now propose will encourage that trend. Undoubtedly, it will do great damage to the under-developed countries

and the developing nations. A good many materials not exempted in the list come from the under-developed countries, and the consequence for them, marginal, perhaps, but none the less real, will be greater instability.
Finally, the Motion lays the Government open to special pleading. Last night, we had plenty of opportunities for that from both sides of the House. It lays the Government open to one party who wants an exemption for this, another who wants exemption for that, and to discrimination between one industry and another. We shall see more and more of that pressure building up over the next few weeks for exemptions to be added to the list.
Moreover, the scheme insulates certain industries—perhaps that is the intention —from foreign competition. But this is contrary to all the Government's other policies in this connection, their policy on large mergers, for example, which is aimed at improving competitive power in international markets. Why have a policy to build up export potential and competitive potential vis-a-vis foreign nations and at the same time provide for import deposits here which mollycoddle our domestic industries?
To be set against all those disadvantages, disadvantages which I am sure the Government recognise, there could be some gains, but it is a fine matter of judgment at any given time whether import deposits as provided for in the Motion are likely to work. My contention is that the present conditions in the British economy mean that, far from the Ways and Means Motion having the effect which the Government seek, it will have the effect of cutting down our exports just as much as it reduces our imports.
Before elaborating that point, I have a technical question to put to the Financial Secretary. The hon. Gentleman is probably in a better position to answer it than the Board of Trade Ministers, who are sadly absent from the debate. In passing, one must note that, although the Motion is a Treasury responsibility, publication of the Bill is expected today and the Second Reading debate is to come on Thursday, so that one might assume that there should be at least one Minister from the Board of Trade here


to listen to the arguments of the House and, one hopes, embody them—

Sir D. Glover: The President of the Board of Trade has probably gone to discuss the matter with E.F.T.A.

Mr. Nott: That is more than likely. From what one has heard, it will be a rather long discussion.
Now, my question to the Financial Secretary. A large proportion of imports coming into this country—I do not know the precise volume—come in through foreign-controlled importers, perhaps a branch or a subsidiary company of the foreign producer of, for instance, refrigerators or motor cars. The Motion will not work at all in relation to these foreign imports if the Bank of England makes life easier for the foreign-controlled importers by operating in the forward exchange market. This is a technical point but it is directly relevant to the way the import deposits scheme will operate.
The foreign-controlled importer will try to raise the finance to meet his deposit as required under the Motion by borrowing money abroad. As my hon. Friend the Member for the Cities and London and Westminster (Mr. John Smith) said last night, the scheme will impose enormous strain on the banking system in this country. Every importer will accordingly do his utmost to finance his deposits by foreign funds. Thus, the foreign importer or the importer controlled from abroad will borrow the money required under the Motion in foreign currency, will then buy sterling in the spot market, and sell it in the forward market to protect himself against exchange risks. I am sure that the Financial Secretary is aware of the point I am making.
Thus, we will get purchases of spot sterling and sales of forward sterling in the six months forward market. In this way, the money which has been borrowed abroad will have been protected against any movement in exchange rates over the six months now coming. We must, I think, expect that exchange rates could move in the next six months. Will the Bank of England support the forward market? Since devaluation, as far as we are aware, it has ceased to support the forward market in sterling. That is

the evidence. If large pressure is put on the forward market to cover exchange risk, is the bank going to come back into the forward market and support sterling or will it keep out? This is a vitally important point.

Mr. Harold Lever: It may be a vital point but it does not seem to me one that is immediately for discussion on the Floor of the House.

Mr. Nott: Not for discussion?

Mr. Lever: I would have thought not. That is my immediate reaction.

Mr. Nott: I disagree with the hon. Gentleman. Are there certain matters relating to this Resolution which should not be discussed on the Floor of the House?

Mr. Lever: The hon. Gentleman is inviting me to expound on what future Bank of England forward market policy might be. He is really like Diogenese, who begged alms from the statute and practised disappointment. He is unlikely to hear me expound the Bank of England's forward market policy on the Floor of the House. It is hard to get me to talk about the past.

Mr. Nott: Certainly. I am not necessarily expecting the hon. Gentleman to answer my questions. The day I get my questions answered by the Government the sword of Damocles will fall. Nevertheless, the point I am making is relevant to the Resolution and I hope that he will take note of it. Perhaps I can leave the point there for the moment.
If the Bank of England does not support the forward market, then we shall see discount on forward sterling rising considerably, and this will reflect on the whole strength of sterling and is something which the Treasury will not wish to happen. If, on the other hand, the Bank keeps out of the forward market, it will mean that more and more people will be able to finance their deposits by borrowing the money abroad and thereby evading what I assume to be the purpose of this Resolution, which is to restrict imports to the maximum possible extent.
I believe that a system of this kind will only succeed in its objectives if there is not an excess of liquidity in the


economy at the time it is introduced. I am aware that the Government have imposed one credit squeeze after another, but the recent Treasury bulletin pointed out that money supply has been rising at the rate of 6 per cent. per annum and this is far higher than the rate of growth of the economy as a whole.
It is clear that people are prepared to continue to run down their savings to maintain their standards of living and that a cut in effective demand is almost impossible to achieve in present circumstances. Consumption in this country has only fallen once since the war and, although the Chancellor's whole objective is to cut back on consumption, he has obviously signally failed to do so up to now.
If this is the situation, what will happen to demand for goods in the domestic market which previously was applied to the purchase of imported goods? The import deposits system will transfer purchases from imported goods to domestically produced goods. But it has been Government policy all along, although hon. Members opposite have been angry about to maintain a margin of spare capacity in the economy. If that demand is to be taken away from imported goods and shifted to domestically produced goods, the Government will see that spare capacity rapidly taken away. wage rates rising and unemployment falling—something which hon. Members opposite and we all desire but which is not Government policy, as is shown by the introduction of the credit restriction Measures.
The pressure upon domestically produced goods will rise as a result of these proposals. Manufacturers who now have some spare capacity and supply the export markets will take the soft and easy option, which they always do, and will supply the domestic market. If the hon. Gentleman really believes that this Resolution will succeed, in a situation where the Government are unable to restrain consumption and where consumer demand will be shifted from imported to domestically produced goods, thereby taking up capacity now available for export goods, he is mistaken.
The need to meet increased demand for hone produced goods in the market will undoubtedly lead to companies prod-

ucing for the home market paying big enough wage rates, which means that, in turn, the exporting firms, in order to retain their labour, will have to raise wage rates in order to meet the increased competition in the labour market.
I believe that with the amount of liquidity in the economy now, with the evidence that consumers are not prepared to reduce their demands, and with no evidence that the Government are changing basically their fundamental policy of money supply, this Resolution will not have the effect of cutting down imports any more than it will have the effect of reducing our exports. I believe that the two will cancel out each other.
The export relief provisions embodied in the Resolution will create an appalling administrative muddle. I do not understand how they are going to work. One example has been given today in the Press. This is the Ford tractor factory at Basildon, one of the biggest exporting plants in the country. But it is very much an assembly plant. It imports parts from Antwerp and Copenhagen. How are the Government going to get over the relief provisions to some of our biggest exporting companies? There is going to be an appalling muddle. The Government are also going to upset the growing trend towards multi-national production, in which British and foreign companies have come together in the manufacture of components and various articles. The system will distort these efforts towards rationalisation of purchasing as between one country and another.
The Resolution will also put many of our home manufactures more directly into the hands of domestic monopoly producers and that cannot be to the advantage of the country. For example, basically we have only one producer of certain steel tubes. Tube Investments has at least a quasi, if not a full, monopoly of production. From my experience it is vital for a company exporting bent steel tubes—a big exporting item for Britain—to he able to say to a monopoly producer, "If you do not keep prices down we will purchase the tubes from abroad." They may not do so, but if they lose their capacity to be able to do so, it is very damaging to our export effort.
Those are the reasons why I oppose the Resolution root and branch.

10.40 a.m.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I listened with great interest to the speech of the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Nott). I fail to understand why he has fundamental objections to these import impositions. Yesterday, the Leader of the Opposition advocated an elaborate scheme of import duties on agricultural products, and if that is to be the Opposition's programme, I fail to see why the hon. Gentleman should have fundamental objections to this Resolution.
I agree with him at least in thinking that it is a highly complicated and complex problem which the ordinary man in the street does not understand. I would welcome an announcement that the Government intend to produce a popular illustrated booklet to explain the matter. [Laughter.] It is all very well for Members to laugh, but if something is complicated, it is necessary to explain it to the ordinary citizen. I will make the effort if some hon. Member opposite will subsidise me.
I support the Resolution, because I believe that years ago the economy would have benefited if the Government had acted to prohibit unnecessary imports. By unnecessary imports I mean gaming machines, which are unnecessary in the present economic situation. I would long ago have banned the import of one-armed bandits and other gambling machines of that kind from the United States of America.

Mr. Michael Alison: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that on his hypothesis it would be perfectly reasonable for the United States Government to say that the import of British artificial eyelashes into the United States was likewise superfluous and unnecessary? While that may not matter to the hon. Gentleman, many people who now make artificial eyelashes would be put out of work.

Mr. Speaker: We cannot debate an American Ways and Means resolution.

Mr. Hughes: That illustrates the craziness of our international trading arrangements. The hon. Gentleman argues that we buy one-armed bandits from America which in return buys artificial eyelashes from us. That demonstrates the need to rationalise international trade.

Sir G. Nabarro: Would not the hon. Gentleman admit at once that all international trade is a two-way affair and that if we ban certain types of mechanical equipment from the United States, or anywhere else, the country concerned will reciprocate and ban the import of our M.G., Rolls-Royce, Morris, Austin and other motor cars which we export?

Mr. Hughes: That is the classic argument of the free trader and I am glad to see that the hon. Gentleman is coming out as a strong supporter of the old Liberal doctrine of unrestricted free trade, but I warn him that his argument is entirely contradictory. The other day he asked the Secretary of State for Defence why we should import American aircraft. I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman's view about that. The country cannot afford to import American military aircraft, or American military material for aircraft.
In my constituency there is a distillery which produces, among other things, whisky, gin and vodka. The market for these is the United States.

Sir G. Nabarro: No, Bloody Marys here.

Mr. Hughes: I will not indulge in language of that kind about a commodity which is consumed in my constituency. I am glad to be carrying the hon. Gentleman with me. This is the first time that I have been able to carry him with me so far in my argument.
The argument is that we must export more whisky, more gin and more vodka to the United States and because of that, according to the hon. Gentleman, we must import goods from the United States. There is considerable feeling about this in Scotland. The price of whisky has gone up by 4s. a bottle on the argument that consumption of whisky in the home market must be restricted in order to increase exports.

Sir G. Nabarro: The hon. Gentleman has got it quite wrong. A Bloody Mary is a well known drink which has three constituents; one is vodka, the second is Worcester sauce, and the third is tomato juice. Worcester sauce and tomato juice are produced in South Worcestershire and vodka is produced in South Ayrshire, which is exactly complementary.

Mr. Hughes: I think that we will agree that his constituents can drink more that the argument is becoming rather complicated. Let me get to the main point of my argument and forget about Bloody Marys, because they tempt me to make historical analogies.

Sir G. Nabarro: Sir G. Nabarro indicated assent.

Mr. Hughes: I am getting more agreement from the hon. Gentleman this morning than I have had from him for years and he is following the argument with great attention.
I understand the argument to be that we must decrease home consumption in order to increase exports and it is said that the Scottish consumer must consume less whisky in order that whisky may be exported, which is what the distillery in my constituency does. But then comes the argument about imports. As a result, we have to tell the Scottish consumer that he must consume less whisky in order that we can increase exports and satisfy consumer demand in the United States from which we get expensive military aircraft. I contend that the consumer is getting a bad deal. It is no good my telling my constituents in South Ayrshire that it is necessary for them to export more whisky in order that the imports of material for Polaris submarines from the United States may be increased. So I agree very much with the hon. Member that this is a discriminating sort of Ways and Means Resolution. It is discriminating in a way which is very difficult to understand, but it is absolutely necessary in the present economic situation.
The paragraph starting with line 205 refers to aircraft. Are we to put an import duty upon American aircraft which have been ordered by the Ministry of Defence? This shows that very stupid decisions have been made with the approval of hon. Members opposite for buying large quantities of American aircraft to import to this country. If this Resolution will succeed in reducing imports of American aircraft or parts of American machinery, for example for Polaris submarines, I support it.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: Is the burden of the hon. Member's argument that we should deprive ourselves of necessary defences so

that his constituents can drink more whisky?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am being very patient, but we can not debate defence policy on this Ways and Means Resolution.

Mr. Hughes: That was the last thing I was attempting to do, Mr. Speaker. I was talking about materials which will not be subject to import duties, presumably under paragraphs starting at line 205. I do not wish to be diverted by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor), although in parenthesis I note that he is in favour of increased public expenditure.
There are certain paragraphs in this Resolution with which we can all agree. I have doubts whether imports of sugar, raw materials and other foodstuffs will not result in an increased cost of living. We can all object from a constituency point of view and express various doubts on parts of the Resolution.
I point out, as I have frequently done before, that we must deal with an international economic situation in which we spend too much money abroad. When I am told that the Labour Government began spending money abroad, I point out that it was the Macmillan Government which decided to import all this Polaris equipment from the United States of America. In the economic interests of this nation and its standard of living, we must stop spending abroad. I welcome these import duties because they are a step in that direction.

10.54 a.m.

Mr. Graham Page: Just before the Sitting was suspended last night, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) asked by what authority the import deposits would be collected in advance of the Act authorising their collection. The reply he received was not from the Financial Secretary but from further down the Treasury Bench by a Whip moving the suspension of the Sitting. It looked very much like a deliberate escape from some very accurate shooting by my right hon. Friend, who incidentally, is an ex-Treasury Minister. He seemed to be gamekeeper turned poacher. Perhaps that is not a good simile because it rather implies that the Government are now the gamekeeper.


If there is one thing that the Government are not doing, it is keeping to the rules of the game.
The Resolution states in the first two lines:
That there shall be charged on all goods imported into the United Kingdom on or after 27th November 1968…".
I stop there because this means that this duty is to be collected as from tomorrow, whereas the Bill authorising its collection will not be passed through Parliament for perhaps three or four weeks. We have not even seen the Bill, let alone had a Second Reading of it, so it is bound to be some weeks before it becomes an Act of this Parliament. It is a basic principle of the sovereignty of Parliament on which our constitution is founded that it is necessary to have an Act of Parliament before collecting any taxes, customs and excise.
That principle was successfully reclaimed by Parliament something over half a century ago by an Act passed in 1913, on the initiative of the late Mr. Bowles, giving limited powers to collect taxes during a period between the passing of a Resolution of this House and an Act of Parliament authorising those taxes. The 1913 provisions have been revised from time to time and were eventually amended and consolidated this year in the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1968. The last thing I am qualified to do is to give the House a constitutional lecture and I do not intend to try to do so, but I call attention to the history of the 1968 Act in order that hon. Members shall not think that this is a new provision which has not been tried in the past. The 1968 Act is a consolidation of an exciting chapter of the history of this House and the extent to which it can be used is already settled by precedent.
Section 1 gives temporary statutory effect to a House of Commons Resolution for the renewal, variation or abolition of any existing tax. These import duties are not an existing tax and therefore do not come under Section 1. If they did, the Resolution would have the power of an Act of Parliament for a period of time, but I do not think the Government would claim that the import duties are an existing tax.
Section 2 is only the machinery for Section 1. I shall come back to Section 3. Section 4 relates to drawbacks and Section 5 is machinery about Motions and Resolutions. Section 6 is the title, repeals and savings. Section 3, I understand, is the Section on which the Government base their claim to collect this tax as from tomorrow, although they will not have the authority of this House to collect it for several weeks. Section 3 is the only one which can be applicable. Subsection (1) says:
The draftsman the Resolution before us has brought the Resolution within that subsection by calling an import duty "a duty of Customs". Here the Government have adopted a legal fiction stating that something shall be what it is called. Import duties are to be called "duties of Customs", and therefore are to come within this Section. I think it very doubtful whether a Resolution, as opposed to an Act of Parliament, can make something what it is not by calling it what it is not; but let us assume that that is cheat No. 1 of this Resolution and that we are to call import duties "duties of Customs".
The following provisions of this section shall have effect where the House of Commons passes a resolution providing for the imposition as from a specified date of any duty of customs and excise, not being a resolution to which statutory effect can be given under section 1 of this Act.
I understand that the case of the Financial Secretary is that this Section which authorises the collection of security for duty authorises the collection of the whole of that duty as security. I would call this cheat No. 2. This surely cannot be a correct interpretation of that Section.
What is meant by "security"? According to Section 292 of the Customs and Excise Act, 1952, "security" is a "bond or otherwise". I should have thought that the word "otherwise" was ejusdem generis with "bond". Everybody knows what the bond is. Everybody knows that giving security for customs is a matter of delivering perhaps one's own bond, if one is trusted enough by the customs or, if not, by payment of a small premium one hands in an insurance company bond for the payment of duty. This is not collection of the whole duty. If the Government claim that they can collect the whole duty by


virtue of Section 3(2) of the 1968 Act, this is wholly wrong.
Section 3 merely provides that a security for the payment of the duty may be collected. The Government must accept merely a bond if that bond is offered and they cannot insist on the full payment of duty until they have an Act to give them that authority. If the Financial Secretary gives an assurance that the full 50 per cent. will not be demanded until authorised by Act of Parliament, I shall be happy. This is not merely a matter of Parliamentary procedure. It is not merely an academic or theoretical matter; it is very real.
The example has been given from the benches opposite of the small or medium machine tool importer. He is placed in extreme embarrassment. He may have goods in transit. He may have already sold them on credit in this country. He has to get them out of Customs and deliver them to his customer. But if the Government are to collect money on the basis of this Resolution, he must find the full 50 per cent. in order to get the goods out of Customs.
Reasonably he could have been given, three of four weeks before the Measure was passed, the breathing space of providing a bond as security. That short respite would have eased the position of a large number of small and medium importers. This worries not the big boys —they can put down the money—but the man who is importing small quantities but which represent financially a large amount to him if he must find 50 per cent. of the value of the goods. The Government have no right to collect the full amount from him until an Act is on the Statute Book authorising them to do so.
This is not the first time that the Government have tried to govern the country without the authority of Parliament. This must stop before it makes Parliament a laughing stock. Have they no pride in being elected to this historical House? If they play this sort of trick on the House again and again, the House will perish. Is that what they want? They should take back this Resolution and get it in order or give the House an undertaking that the full amount will not be collected until they have the authority of an Act to collect it.

11.5 a.m

Mr. John Pardoe: Unfortunately, there has been some talk in the debate of "unnecessary imports". I declare my position immediately by saying that I regard unnecessary imports as those which no one here will buy, and nothing else. Unnecessary imports are certainly not imports which I do not like or those of which I do not approve or which do not happen to square with my prejudices.
Last night, the debate was in grave danger of becoming a competition in protectionism. Some of the most protectionist speeches I have heard in the House were made from the Conservative benches. They were mostly concerned with the Table of exemptions. In the first few lines of the Motion, the Government propose further massive interference in the workings of the free enterprise system, and yet hardly a cheep was heard from the Conservative benches. When we came to the list of areas where the Government do not propose to intervene, the Tory back bench Members nearly burst themselves with indignation.
Last night, the Financial Secretary said that the Ways and Means Motion was drafted in such a way that exemptions could not be deleted. This seemed to make a large number of hon. Members on this side of the House very angry. Apparently, there are many hon. Members who want more rather than less protection. As I understand the Motion—and I hope that I am right—it will permit free trade amendments but not protectionist amendments. From my point of view, that is the right way round.
I hope that the right hon. Member who winds up for the Conservative Party will make it clear why it opposes the Motion. I oppose the whole Motion, but primarily because of the imposition which it lays on imports. Some Conservative Members oppose it because certain goods have been exempted. I repudiate these vote-catching sallies, this cheap way of proceeding, when one says, "Why cannot dairy products be exempted? Why cannot eggs be exempted? What about horticultural products?". I represent an agricultural constituency, and I suppose that I could make the same case. But I do not intend to be a party to this


kind of nonsense, because it is hiding one's head in the sand.
I regard the whole Motion as tragic and mistaken. It is the end of the road for all those who, eight years ago, saw the beginnings of a new spirit of free trade. When one looks at this Motion, where is that spirit today? Free trade is the only policy which makes sense for Britain. Britain is a trading nation and anything which hinders free trade—and, my goodness. this Motion does that—is our enemy and anything which encourages it is our friend. I oppose the Motion because of the first four lines in it and not because of the Table of exemptions.
I think that the Motion will do more harm than good because it will work against competition and means that our industry will become less rather than more competitive. It is always easy to argue the case for protection, but whatever the short-term advantages of protection—and they are only short-term advantages—it is always disastrous for our economy in the long term. One of the reasons why we find ourselves in our present economic plight is that we have suffered over 50 years or more from weak and flabby Governments who have always succumbed to the easy, short-term advantages of protection.

Mr. Leadbitter: Would the hon. Gentleman agree that if he takes his argument too far he might well vex the much tried and harassed fishing industry?

Mr. Pardue: Yes. I have some fishermen in my constituency and I am prepared to argue this case with them, as I have done in the past. I do not believe that grubbing round the streets with cheap, little protectionist policies wins votes or helps this country in any way.
Another point which I wish to raise is the effect which this Motion will have on small firms. I do not believe that the large firms will suffer too much, although they will to a certain extent. Many small firms simply will not have adequate finance to cover the deposits. Both major parties in the House have succumbed totally and completely to the doctrine of size in economic policy, yet it is the small firms which contribute most to the growth and general health of our economy.
There are many examples of small importing firms which will go broke very soon. One example which has been given to me today concerns a firm which has on order£34,000 worth of goods which are already in the boats on their way here. This firm will have to pay a deposit of£17,000 if the Motion goes through. To do so he will have to sell up, and I suspect that there are many other firms in the same position.
Will the Financial Secretary tell us what percentage of the value of all our imports will be affected by the deposits? There is a list of exemptions, but it is impossible to see from looking at it and at the tariff list exactly what percentage of our total imports is affected by the exemptions and what percentage is affected by the deposit.

Mr. Eric Lubbock: The case which the hon. Member is quoting refers to a constituent of mine. In equity, the Government ought to exempt goods which are already on the way and where the contracts are irrevocable, so that importers who are unable to get the money are not in a position to cancel the contracts.

Mr. Pardoe: If the Government did not tamper with the procedures of Parliament and waited for the introduction of the Bill, the delay would ensure that this would inevitably happen.
Will the Financial Secretary also tell us what effect this imposition will have on under-developed countries and on the world poverty problem. It appears from the list that a large number of the products which we now import from poorer nations will be subject to deposit. I strongly suspect that this Motion will negate much of the good that the Ministry of Overseas Development has done. It is no good lashing out sums of money in aid if at the same time trade with these countries is restricted. What effect will the Motion have on the one-fifth of the population of the under-developed countries who are now so poor that they are actually starving? What will be the effect on the gap between per capita income in this country and, for instance, in India?
I do not believe that we need further protection from foreign competition. We need a new and buccaneering spirit of free trade. We need to recognise that


we have nothing to gain from a new bout of economic nationalism. The peoples of Germany, France and this country cannot solve their problems within their own borders. We may dislike not being masters of our fate, but we cannot escape by putting up the shutters and ceasing to trade. We cannot shut out the realities of the world economic situation, which is what this Motion attempts to do.

11.12 a.m.

Sir Harry Legge-Bourke: I support what my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) has said. It does not surprise me that these impositions are being described as a duty when they are in fact a compulsory loan. Fiddling with the wording in order to get it within the scope of the Statute is a disreputable exercise. I hope that the Financial Secretary will give a satisfactory reply to the effect that these so-called duties, or loans, will not be drawn from the importers until Parliament has given proper authority for it.
The matter I wish to raise is the philosophy underlying the selection of exemptions which has been made. I wish that these loans from importers were not being called for, but if they have to be it is important that we should know the philosophy underlying the exemptions. As far as I can see from the list of exemptions, roughly foodstuffs, books, publications and some raw materials are to be exempted. How is raw material defined? In order to carry on some business in this country it is necessary to import materials which are not in a finished state but which have undergone a process which cannot be undertaken here.
I refer to lines 195 and 196 on page 911 of the Order Paper, the headings 76.01 and 77.01, dealing with unwrought aluminium and waste and scrap, and unwrought magnesium and waste and scrap. Many raw materials are required for comparatively modern products, some of which are vital to our defence programme. I should be grateful if the Financial Secretary would listen to what I have to say. I have been told this morning that there is a type of aluminium alloy which is either a eutectic alloy or a clad-brazing alloy which cannot be obtained in the United Kingdom, but which now becoming more and more essential for hovercraft, heat exchangers, oil coolers and radiators. This is a busi-

ness which is building up in this country, and one would have thought that this alloy was a raw material. Since it cannot be obtained in the required form in this country, surely it ought to be included in the exemptions.
Will the Financial Secretary give an undertaking that if propositions are put to him in the course of today's debate which convince the Government of the necessity for further exemptions, a new Ways and Means Measure will be introduced by the Government in order to enable these matters to be discussed when the Bill comes before the House.

Mr. Brian Parkyn: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that this argument, on which I closely support him, applies also to many semi-manufactured goods which themselves make finally produced goods and also to many chemicals which go to make other materials which are exported?

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's support. I was merely giving one example; I am sure that there are many others. I have a partial interest in the example which I have given in that the people who have supplied me with the information are supplying a company of which I am a director. My own company does not require this material. It is obvious that there will be many slightly processed imports which cannot be so processed except outside the United Kingdom and which are absolutely essential to United Kingdom industry. I hope, therefore, that the Financial Secretary will give attention to this matter.
My next point concerns the heading 76.01, unwrought aluminium and waste and scrap, in which I must declare a direct interest. There is material known as brush grained aluminium. Brush graining may fairly soon be capable of being done to an adequate standard in the United Kingdom, I do not know, but it has an application in which I have an interest, and that is the production of offset-lithographic plates. This metal must be very reliable from the point of view of level, and this is a most difficult process to perfect. Unwrought aluminium can be imported without the importer being obliged to provide a loan, but brush grained metal is not available in the country now to the standard required. Why then should that be caught whereas


the unwrought aluminium is not? This is another example along the lines suggested by the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Brian Parkyn).
Will the Financial Secretary give an assurance, if applications similar to the ones which I have mentioned are made from any industry, that the Government are prepared to consider introducing another Ways and Means Measure so that when the Bill is introduced we can deal with the true problems of industry and see that industry is not damaged.

Mr. Harold Lever: I should like to be clear what the hon. Gentleman is asking. Is he asking me to consider introducing a Ways and Means Resolution which will allow hon. Members to table Amendments to the Bill which would exempt materials? I assure him that the present Ways and Means Resolution will allow such Amendments to be tabled.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: That is a considerable reassurance, but knowing how tight the rules of order must be over Ways and Means Measures, it would be unfortunate, not only for hon. Members but for the public at large, if when the Bill is before us we find ourselves being ruled out of order. As we do not want to be in that position, I trust that the Financial Secretary and the President of the Board of Trade will consider as favourably as possible receiving representations along the lines I have been making.

11.20 a.m.

Sir John Foster: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page), I do not believe that the Resolution before the House will achieve the object the Government has in mind. In his statement on Friday the Chancellor of the Exchequer outlined what he intended should happen. He said that Parliament would be asked to approve a Bill providing for a scheme of import deposits. He went on to say that the Bill would do various things and that the deposits would be repayable after 180 days. He added:
The House will be asked to vote the Resolution on Monday so that deposits will be payable in respect of goods entered with the Customs on and after Wednesday, 27th November".—[Official Report, 22nd November, 1968; Vol. 773, c. 1795.]

The word "payable" in that context is ambiguous because something can be payable even if it is not required to be paid until later. I imagine that the Chancellor meant to use the word in the sense that it would be payable and has to be paid on that date. If he did not mean that, then the Ways and Means Resolution has no meaning, since what he actually meant could have been provided for in the Bill, which could have stated that goods entered on and after 27th November will have to pay a deposit.
I imagine, therefore, that the intention of the Government is that goods imported on and after tomorrow will have a deposit paid on them by the importer before they can be released. I also imagine that the Government think that the Resolution will accomplish that. In this connection, I need not go through the details of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1968, apart from Section 3(1), (2) and (3). Section 3(1) of that Act provides that the House of Commons can, in effect, pass
…a resolution providing for the imposition as from a specified date of any duty of customs…".
The Resolution before the House does provide for the imposition, as from a specified date, of a Customs duty. The word "Customs" appears, as does a specified date—namely, 27th November—and therefore it is the imposition of a Customs duty from a specified date.
Thus far the Financial Secretary and I are no doubt in company. We probably part company when we come to consider Section 3(2) which, in my submission, departs from the Ways and Means Resolution. We can eliminate Section 3(3) of the Act, which refers to a duty of Excise. As we are dealing with what is called a "duty of Customs", that does not apply. There is also the subsidiary point about whether one can call this a duty of Customs when it will be paid back; but, with respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby, that is a subsidiary point.
Section 3(2) of the Act states
…the Commissioners may require any person who, on or after the specified date, imports or clears any… goods to which the resolution applies… to give security…".
What better security could there be than 100 per cent.? Does this mean that the Commissioners will require 100 per cent.


security from everybody? To begin with, it is not security. To require somebody to pay a debt is not securing the debt. To require somebody to pay a duty is not security for the duty. I could show that that was not the intention of Parliament at the time of the passage of the Act; and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby explained, under Section 1, which applies to the continuation of taxes, provision is made for a tax to be collected.
If it is a tax, one can collect 100 per cent. of it. But in respect of a future Customs duty, it is obvious that Parliament did not mean that 100 per cent. of it should be collected. If Parliament had meant that, Section 1 of the Act would have said so and there would have been no need for Section 3. Parliament would have said, "Section 1 shall apply to continuing duties, new duties and so on." Parliament did not go so far as to say that a person shall be required to pay the full amount, or 100 per cent.
If one studies the debates, one sees that such an argument was rejected on the ground that it would be anticipating the legislativie path of Parliament. "We agree that existing taxes are likely to be continued because the Government have a majority," hon. Members said at that time, in effect. But in respect of future duties, they felt that nobody could be certain that they would be imposed. The Government of the day might have a change of heart and there might be a hundred reasons why, if a Government decided on 26th November to impose a future duty, it might be modified by 15th December. Thus, the reason for Section 3 was to provide that people need not pay the whole duty but merely provide security. For that reason Section 3 was distinguished from Section 1.
It would seem that if the Commissioners demanded 100 per cent. and somebody offered security to them, it would be possible to mandamus the Commissioners and say that they were transgressing the Act because they were demanding something which was not security. If Parliament had meant that security required 100 per cent. being paid, Section 3 would not have been included. Section 1 would have applied and in that Section Parliament would have included a provision covering future taxes.
The whole argument must turn on the fact that the Government have maintained that when the Commissioners ask for security, they will be entitled to ask for 100 per cent. security. That is not so. On Friday the Chancellor said:
The House will be asked to vote the Resolution on Monday so that deposits will be payable…
If, as I believe, he meant that deposits would have to be paid, that must be wrong because deposits cannot be required to be paid under this Resolution. Only security may be paid.
I have shown the non-sequitur of the right hon. Gentleman's statement because he said:
The House will be asked to vote the Resolution on Monday so that deposits will be payable…
He was wrong in the use of the word "deposits" in that context in connection with them being payable, and he went on:
…in respect of goods entered with the Customs on and after Wednesday, 27th November".—[Official Report, 22nd November, 1968; Vol. 733, c. 1795.]
That shows, I think, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was wrong in the legal advice he got at that time. He seems to have got the advice that deposits would be payable under the Ways and Means Resolution. That is impossible, because the deposits are on duties and the duties cannot be payable under the passing of the Ways and Means Resolution.
Assuming that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is wrong, the argument is between the Financial Secretary and this side. The hon. Gentleman will maintain that there can be no better security than 100 per cent., but the fact that 100 per cent. is very good security does not make it security, because it is payment of a duty. If that is not so, what is the meaning of the word "security"? Security means something that must go on afterwards as well. If I secure or guarantee a bank account it means that some action has to be taken if I do not pay—judgment has to be entered, or something has to be sold.
In the case of£100 provided for deposit on a duty of£100 there is nothing more to be done, so that is not security. Security always involves some form of action, and, with great respect to the


legal advice that the Government have been given, I submit that this Ways and Means Resolution does not accomplish what they want, because they have misinterpreted its effect in their interpretation of Section 3(2) of the 1968 Act.

11.31 a.m.

Sir K. Joseph: I rise, not in any way to seek to bring the debate to an end but rather to invite the Government to answer the key question that has been raised by a number of my right hon. and hon. Friends. Important points have been ventilated during this debate from both sides, but all are dwarfed. I think hon. Members will agree, by the absolutely basic issue raised last night by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter). His interpretation of the legal rights of the Government, lucidly put last night, has been amplified this morning in a most powerful speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) and further amplified by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northwich (Sir J. Foster).
If the Financial Secretary can assure the House that the Government, contrary to the declared intention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, intend to collect no more than security for the charge proposed under the Motion—an assurance that would be consistent with Section 3 (2) of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1968—the House will, I think, accept that assurance. If he cannot give that assurance, my right hon. and hon. Friends and I will wish to take the opinion of a Law Officer on the interpretation of the law, because the basic rights of the citizen are at stake here.
I invite the Financial Secretary to give his opinion now, but I must warn him and the Government that if his assurances are not satisfactory we shall not lightly let this matter drop.

11.34 a.m.

Mr. Harold Lever: I will at this stage deal only with the point mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph), but I may have to ask further indulgence to deal with other points. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for allowing me, as far as it is in my power to do so, to clear up this point.
First, I assure the House that I will, 1 hope, never recommend any incursion into the rights of the House as laid down to control Government action except when the House itself shall vote further powers to the Government.
In interpreting the Section in question, I speak as a mere Financial Secretaty surrounded by astute lawyers who are arguing the details. I have not been put on notice at all on the precise point, otherwise there would have been a Law Officer present this morning-[Interruplion.] The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) raised a quite different point last night, but that was not his fault.
Owing to a typing error, I referred to Section 4 as the Section under which we were operating, whereupon the right hon. Gentleman very promptly pointed out that Section 4, or whatever Section I cited, was not appropriate. I made it clear last night that this was a typing error, and that it was to Section 3 I should have referred. No one put me on notice that there was any question under Section 3, but I will do my best to satisfy the House—

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am grateful to the Financial Secretary for giving way. I did take the point last night—and HANSARD tomorrow will make it clear—that the Motion did not and could not legally have the effect which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated he intended. Surely, that was sufficient notice, a number of hours ago, to enable the Financial Secretary, with all the advice available to him, to brief himself with such arguments as he can in favour of saying that the Motion will have that effect. The fact that he himself—I am sure in perfect good faith—misled me as to the Section, does not alter the main point which went to the root of the matter last night.

Mr. Lever: All I can say is that it is as well we had this notice, such as it was, rather late last night, but it was on another point. The result was that I took advice, and I was advised that under Section 3 we have the powers required to enforce what are the purposes of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Let us see, first, whether there is any real disagreement between us. The Opposition, and the House generally, are quite satisfied that when the Ways and Means Motion is passed it will impose as from the specified date—that is, as from tonight—this duty of Customs upon imported goods affected. So, as from tomorrow, duty will have been imposed by the Ways and Means Motion, but will be effectively payable when the Act itself is passed which makes that money directly payable. I am sorry to use this rather ambiguous expression, which the Chancellor used, about its becoming payable. The duty becomes payable on goods as from tomorrow: it only has to be paid, as I understand it, when the Act is passed. I appear to have carried with me the hon. and learned Member for Northwich (Sir J. Foster) and the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page).
When we do impose the duty effectively by the Motion—as from tomorrow morning, or as from tonight—we will be entitled to operate Section 3(2), which states that the Customs commissioners are entitled to take security from an importer that he will pay, if and when the Act comes into operation. That is to say, he wants to take his goods away: the duty has been provisionally imposed by the Ways and Means Motion; if an Act of Parliament is later passed confirming that Motion the duty will have been imposed from that date.
If we allowed the man to take his goods away without paying anything or securing anything we might have a somewhat interesting exercise in collecting the tax when the Act was later passed. Subsection (2) therefore gives the Commissioners the power to demand security, before the goods are released, that when the Act of Parliament is passed they will be paid the money that is due. Under the other Act, the Commissioners are given discretion as to the kind of security they will take. Therefore, if the importer, as from tomorrow, wants his goods, he has to secure to the satisfaction in good faith of the Customs that he will pay the duty of Customs when it becomes due.
This is where I must part company with the ingenious arguments of the hon. and learned Member for Northwich. He says it can never be right to take cash

to secure that a man will pay a sum of cash in future. If I want to secure that the hon. and learned Gentleman will pay Customs duty in the event of an Act of Parliament, if I have the right to take security from him, I have the right to say to him "You must satisfy me that you are able to pay on 1st January," or whenever the Act comes into force. He will ask "What security can I give you?" and I say "Offer me something." He says, "I haven't any security, all I have is cash." The duty that he has to pay is£100. He has nothing at all whereby he can satisfy me other than that. He has not good credit.
Let us suppose for the purpose of this argument only, that I have the right to insist that I am absolutely secured, that I will get£100 from him in January if the Act comes into force. He says, "I have nothing to offer except£100 in cash and you can hold that as security that on 1st January I will apply that money to the discharge of a debt."
To hold otherwise is to penalise citizens who are not in a position to offer bonds, bank securities and the like. [Interruption.] With respect, hon. Members must reflect upon this. If the law entitles me to be satisfied that I am to have£100, I am not entitled, and this is a different point. I cannot be entitled to insist exclusively on that. That is quite another matter, I was not arguing that. What I was arguing was that if no other satisfactory security is offered to me, I may say, if I am not satisfied that the security offered is in good faith, "I cannot admit these goods."
The man may then proffer to me the cash. I am saying at this point, and I am not prepared to deal with this point conclusively now, but only tentatively, until a law officer comes along—and I am doing my best to get one for the House, one who is experienced in Customs law, about which I have no pretensions—that under the Act the Customs has complete discretion as to what it will regard as security. In the absence of adequate legal advice I would tell the House candidly that I am minded to interpret the Act as meaning that the Customs must be satisfied, in good faith, of the security offered to it, and if it is not so satisfied it must not choose cash as security simply because that is the most convenient way of getting payment


in advance. I would need to have more clear legal opinion on this before I commit the Customs to that.

Sir J. Foster: I understand that the hon. Gentleman leaves open the question of a man who produces a guarantee by, say, the Midland Bank for£100. It may be that it would not be good faith on the part of the Customs to say, "We will not take the£100 guarantee. We insist on cash."

Mr. Lever: I am leaving that open. I will say this about it—although I will leave it open. I will only commend to the House a refusal of that kind if I am advised by the Law Officers that the legal position is absolutely clear and that the practice, over a period of time, is absolutely clear that it has been the accepted interpretation of this duty that the Customs may refuse such a bond.
I could not pass a final pronouncement upon that. My own inclination is to suppose that the scheme in this Provisional Collection of Taxes Act is that the tax only becomes payable when the Act of Parliament is made, and the right of the Customs is to be satisfied by various securities, by any kind of security that can conveniently be taken. There must be discretion as to the security. It is no good, if one wants to secure say a£500 debt and someone comes along and says, "I have a prize cow, worth£1,000 in any open market, will you take this as security?" Obviously, the Customs is entitled to refuse that.
There is no gap between hon. Gentlemen opposite and me. I will not be satisfied that the passing of this Motion entitles the Government to insist on cash in all cases to the exclusion of other reasonable security unless the law officers so assure me. If it helps the House, I will tell it that unless I am assured by the Law Officers that this the absolute and undouted right of the Customs, to demand cash and cash alone as security, thereby using the expression "security" to enforce a payment in all cases, in advance of the passing of the Act, unless I have such an assurance I will not give it that interpretation.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: This matter is obviously urgent, because goods will be cleared under this provision tomorrow.

Does the Financial Secretary promise to have a clear statement, and instructions, issued to Customs and Excise officers throughout the country in the next few hours? Otherwise, there will be confusion. Did I understand him to say that, as a matter of policy, the Government are prepared to accept a valid bond as security?

Mr. Lever: I am saying that before anyone will be told that those bonds will not be accepted, or a satisfactory bond is accepted, I will ensure, today, and I will be able to go into it in much greater detail personally when I am released from my duties here—although I am not complaining at all about a very important subject being discussed in close detail—that instructions will be given that an appropriate bond shall be taken unless the Law Officers advise me that there is an undoubted right to demand cash in all cases.
I cannot give the assurance from the Law Officers at this moment. That is the position, but I give the House my personal assurance that it will only be operated in accordance with the Law Officers' advice. If the Law Officers say, "Yes it is perfectly in order to demand cash in all cases, that is the effect of the various pieces of legislation, or the practice of the Customs", then I must do that.

Sir C. Osborne: How soon will the hon. Gentleman get that advice?

Mr. Lever: I have arranged that the Law Officers should be consulted as quickly as possible. With great respect to the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter), I did not take his point to be one of general politics. I thought that he had been misled by the Section. If he looks at Hansard he will see—my recollection is quite clear—that the point he took was that we had not the powers we were claiming under Section 4, and I agree with him—that we have not. Section 3, on which we relied, was the Section by which, I have been advised, we have this power.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: This is very important and urgent. The Chancellor, on Friday, suggested that the intention was to collect the full value of the deposits as from tomorrow. The Financial Secretary now seems to be suggesting that this


should he left to the discretion of the Customs. I want to know whether it is the wish of the Government to collect the full amount of the deposits as from tomorrow.

Mr. Lever: If the law, properly construed and properly enforced, allows us to collect cash as from tomorrow, we shall collect cash as from tomorrow.

Sir G. Nabarro: That cannot be correct.

Mr. Lever: Do be patient.
I take it that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite do not wish to deprive the Government of duties which the law allows them to collect, properly and correctly, in cash. All I am telling them is that if, on the advice of the Law Officers, the law allows us to collect it in cash tomorrow—and I do not think that the Chancellor condescended to say how he was to collect it—then we will collect it in cash as from tomorrow. [Interruption.] It is a rather delicate point, and I am particularly hoping that hon. Members will be guided by the distinguished legal opinion which lies immediately opposite me on their own side of the House.

Sir G. Nabarro: On a point of order. Having regard to the great dubiety which now exists in the minds of my right hon. Friends would you be prepared, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to accept a Motion to report Progress and ask leave to sit again, pending the arrival of a Law Officer? In the absence of the advice of a Law Officer I am totally incapable of making up my mind as to whether I ought to vote for this Motion or against it. I must have a Law Officer here to advise me.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay): I suggest that we continue the debate. I do not think that it is a genuine point of order at this stage.

Sir G. Nabarro: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Would you please guide me, as a private Member? What steps are within the prerogative of a private Member, as distinct from the Front Bench, to cause a Law Officer to come here and give me his advice, which is what I urgently require?

Mr. Lever: Mr. Lever rose—

Sir G. Nabarro: May I have an answer to my point of order?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is for the Government to decide which Ministers will be on the Front Bench. I suggest that we proceed with the business. Mr. Lever.

Sir G. Nabarro: Further to that point of order. That is not the point I put to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I asked you, having regard to the legal dubieties which now exist, whether you would accept a Motion to report Progress and ask leave to sit again. That is the question I am asking you.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I thought that I had made it quite clear that we were on a point of order, which was why I was not accepting the Motion to report Progress and that I had called Mr. Lever.

Sir K. Joseph: I think that it might be for the assistance of all of us, particularly the Government, if I were to move that the debate be now adjourned. Granted that the Government find a Law Officer, that Law Officer will need time to apprise himself of the arguments. He cannot come straight away, hot foot, and give an authoritative answer such as will clear the minds of the tens of thousands of business men whose interests are involved. Consequently, I hope that my hon. Friend will accept that this is the sensible thing to do; and I beg to move,
That the debate be now adjourned.

Mr. Lever: Further to that point of order.

Sir K. Joseph: That was not a point of order.

Mr. Lever: I take it that the right hon. Gentleman was moving the adjournment of the debate. There is no occasion—

Mr. John Biggs-Davison: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is the Financial Secretary intervening to make a speech?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I understand that the hon. Gentleman is speaking to a point of order. Mr. Lever.

Sir G. Nabarro: Is it my point of order?

Mr. Lever: I suggest that the House does not waste its own time unnecessarily by moving the Adjournment, which I know is moved in good faith.

Sir G. Nabarro: We want a Law Officer.

Mr. Lever: The hon. Gentleman's interventions in this and other debates tend to be mainly for the purpose of demonstrating his lung power. He may rest assured that this has already been demonstrated. He must be silent for a moment and listen.

Sir G. Nabarro: This is all out of order.

Mr. Lever: The hon. Gentleman must listen for a moment.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: On a point of order.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Minister is already speaking to a point of order.

Mr. Lever: I urge the House not to waste its own time.

Sir G. Nabarro: Is this on a point of order?

Hon. Members: Yes.

Mr. Lever: I urge the House as follows. The present position is, as I understand it, that we, under this Ways and Means Motion, will be entitled to take security as from tomorrow.

Sir Frank Pearson: On a point of order.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Minister is addressing the House on a point of order which was raised by the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph).

Sir K. Joseph: With great respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we are not on a point of order, because I have moved a substantive Motion, That the debate be now adjourned.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman may have sought to move the Motion, but the Chair does not accept the Motion. It is a dilatory Motion in the same form as the point of order raised by the hon. Member for

Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro). The Minister is now on a point of order.

Sir G. Nabarro: Are we on my point of order?

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I thought that I had made a perfectly clear statement that I had not accepted the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South.

Sir G. Nabarro: What are we on?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East raised a further point of order, moving, That the debate be now adjourned. I have not accepted that Motion, and we are still on the point of order the Minister is now speaking to.

Mr. Lever: May I have your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker? I am raising a point of order myself. In case I am not speaking on a point of order, I am now speaking on my own point of order. So, on a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is not the position this? The point of order raised by the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) having been rejected, like so many of his previous points of order, as not being a point of order, I was addressing the House in the ordinary way, with its leave, when the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) sought to move the adjournment of the debate. You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, refused to accept that Motion. The result is surely—

Sir G. Nabarro: This is not a point of order.

Mr. Lever: We are not on a point of order any longer.

Sir G. Nabarro: On a point of order. The occupant of the Treasury Bench has just admitted that he is not speaking to a point of order, but is addressing the House. That is in flagrant contradiction of your Ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You said that you were addressing yourself to my point of order. May we have this made clear?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have called the Minister to speak on a point of order. I understood that he was addressing the House on the point of


order, and I will ask the House to try to get back to the business before it.

Sir G. Nabarro: Whose point of order is it?

Mr. Lever: I want to say solemnly to hon. Members opposite that this is a very grave matter, affecting millions of people. I think that we should call a halt to any kind of buffoonery and get down to the real problem. I have treated the criticisms with the deepest of earnestness and anxiety; and I am very anxious to satisfy the House, because I share the anxieties expressed by hon. Members that no Government, not even one that has the disadvantage of having me as a Minister, should trespass—

Mr. Biggs-Davison: On a point of order. With great respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, did I understand you to say—forgive me, because I could not hear you very well—that you had not accepted the Motion moved by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph)? In that case, why is the Financial Secretary to the Treasury addressing himself to that point?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I did not accept the Motion. The Minister rose on a point of order, and we are discussing a point of order at the moment. I hope that the Minister will come to a rapid conclusion on the point.

Mr. Lever: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that it is not a point of order to complain that I am addressing the House on any subject which is in order. I hope that the hon. Member and others will allow me to clear up the point which is, as I understand it, causing very genuine anxiety, at least among some hon. Members, if not among others. [Interruption.] I cannot address myself to this somewhat complex point if a number of wholly irrelevant points of order are made, and I have to speak—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is not for the Minister to decide which points of order are relevant or otherwise.

Mr. Lever: —against a grumbling background. The point that is troubling hon. Members is this. As I understand, they accept that this Ways and Means Motion imposes the liability to this Customs deposit

charge as from tonight. What they query is the right to demand security exclusively in the form of cash as from tomorrow morning. I have told hon. Members that, without being a Law Officer, and without having had notice of this point, but having scrutinised it anxiously, I am at present of the opinion that the Customs may demand security in good faith in its discretion for the payment of this duty —that is, this deposit—when the Bill becomes law, that it may take it in cash—

Mr. Graham Page: Mr. Graham Page rose—

Mr. Lever: May I just finish this point?—as one of the ways in which it may often be for the convenience of importers to give security, and that it is lawful for the Customs to accept security in that form, I am abundantly satisfied.
It seems to me obvious from the terms of the Section that the Commissioners are entitled to accept it if the citizen tenders cash for the full amount and says, "I may be liable to pay£100. You want security for that£100. I tender£100". That is both for the convenience of the citizen and the security of the Revenue, and the Customs should accept it.
The open question is whether the citizen is obliged in all circumstances to tender cash. That, as I understand it, is the point, and, in my judgment, in the absence of a Law Officer, I must express an opinion to the House, although I shall have a Law Officer to confirm the exact position before the debate continues.
My suggestion is that hon. and right hon. Members act provisionally instead of wasting their own time. Let us proceed on the basis that it is my opinion, subject to correction from the Law Officers when they come, that the Customs is entitled only to demand in good faith a satisfactory and reasonable security.

Sir D. Glover: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I wish only to be helpful. I do not think that anyone will be happy if one of the Law Officers is seized of the question at this moment, rushes over to the House, and gives an off-the-cuff decision. Will the Financial Secretary at least assure the House that we shall continue the debate —there are many other matters which we can discuss on the Motion apart from


this particular problem—and that we shall have an adjourned debate tomorrow, at the beginning of business, after the Law Officers have had a chance to study the matter? Otherwise, the House will still feel that it has been dragooned.

Mr. Lever: This is a relatively short point. At the moment, I am inclined to think that, to the extent which the hon. and learned Member for Northwich and his hon. Friend the Member for Crosby, who also is learned in the law, press the point, we are all in agreement. As I understand it—I hope that I shall be corrected if I am wrong—what we are all saying is that the Government, if they get this Motion, impose the charge as from tonight, that it becomes payable as from when they get the Bill, if ever, that in the meantime they are entitled to take security, and that, if the security is in reasonable form and to an adequate amount, that ought to satisfy them. That is what is said, and, if someone cannot produce security in that satisfactory and convenient form, say by bank bond, he may tender cash and the Customs will then be obliged to accept the cash.
That is very much in favour of the citizen. One cannot force a man to produce a banker's bond if he says he will give security in cash. We all agree on that at the moment, and that is how I interpret the matter at this point of time. I am recommending hon. and right hon. Members to continue the debate in an orderly way, as we have done so far, on the assumption that I agree with right hon. and hon. Members opposite learned in the law who have spoken about what is required to conform with the law. In the meantime, the matter is being studied by the Law Officers, and I undertake to the House that, unless it is given adequate opportunity to hear a Law Officer, this is how the Motion will be applied by the Government.
If hon. and right hon. Members will continue the debate, they will do so on the assurance which I have given, which completely accords with the points made by the hon. and learned Gentleman and his right hon. and hon. Friends, and, should there be a change in that respect, it will be when the Law Officer comes along and modifies it. I hope that he will

not modify it, and I hope also that we may continue the debate.

Sir K. Joseph: We are most grateful to the Financial Secretary, who has honourably and in straightforward fashion met the point at issue. But there is still one problem which remains. I understand that the House must adjourn in two hours. If a Law Officer has not been reached and has not been able to address his mind to the problem in sufficient time to support the hon. Gentleman's present conclusion, the debate will have been adjourned and citizens will be in doubt about their obligations. We ask the Financial Secretary to give an assurance that the House will later today, if not this morning, have a clear answer, and, if it is not in line with the hon. Gentleman's own views, an opportunity to debate that answer.
We ask for one further assurance, that the Customs authorities will be given clear instructions in the sense of the Financial Secretary's interpretation of the law unless the Government, supported by the Law Officers, convince the House that that is wrong.

Mr. Harold Lever: I give an assurance to that effect. Since I have asked the House to debate the matter on the basis of my assurance, I must proceed on the basis of that assurance and in the manner indicated unless I give the House an opportunity of debating a Law Officer's contrary opinion. That I must undertake to do.

Sir J. Foster: It may be a little too hard to ask the hon. Gentleman to pronounce further on the law, but is it not clear that, whatever the Law Officers may say, the Chancellor of the Exchequer was wrong in saying that deposits are payable, because the deposits are called Customs duties and Customs duties, by his own statement, are not payable until the Bill is passed? The Chancellor must have been wrong.

Mr. Lever: With respect, if the deposit is a Customs duty, the Customs duty is payable from 27th November. If a Customs duty is a deposit, then the deposit is payable from 27th November. [Interruption.] The hon. and learned Gentleman may underestimate the legal perspicuity of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

12.6 p.m.

Sir D. Glover: May we now bring the debate back to some form of order? It seems that a good many of us have been addressing the House several times when we were entitled to address it only once and getting away with it, rather as, I think, the Government were hoping to get away with this Motion.
The controversy over this Motion is most unfortunate. The feature which disturbs me is the Government's treatment of E.F.T.A. in their manner of producing the import deposit scheme. We fell out with E.F.T.A. when the Government put on the 10 or 15 per cent. surcharge, and we were, in my view rightly charged with "fast dealing". The President of the Board of Trade told the House yesterday, in an unfortunate intervention from the Government's point of view, that this matter was discussed all Friday afternoon with E.F.T.A. at the very time when the Chancellor was making an announcement in this place and saying that the scheme would be brought in.
I cannot imagine that E.F.T.A. will look upon that sort of procedure as proper discussion and consultation. Moreover, the members of E.F.T.A. will read this debate, and they will realise that the Chancellor last Friday was trying to collect a duty by a dubious method before the House of Commons had given him sanction for it. This is all most unfortunate, and it is not surprising that the United Kingdom's reputation overseas stands today at a lower ebb than it has been for generations.
The cause is clear enough—the repeated appearance by the Government of trying to work a fast deal over or round the rules and regulations which are supposed to bind and guard us. It is regrettable that the Government continue to do these things for only minor advantage, thereby losing far more in good will and trust than they may gain in concrete form in our international dealings. That point should be firmly made in this debate as well.
I find myself in some difficulty inasmuch as I am not as hostile to this measure as a good many of my hon. Friends are. I am sure that, if he had not left the Chamber at this moment, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury

would have drawn my attention to a speech which I made last July in which I said that it was obvious that devaluation was taking a much longer time to bite and produce the hoped-for result than the Government had expected, and that for a period we should have an excess of imports over our slowly growing exports.
I made it clear then that, when a country devalues, it does not automatically increase exports at once because, first, people have to go out and get the orders which must then go through the factories. One cannot expect real benefit from devaluation in under nine or 12 months. The benefit of devaluation is now just beginning to permeate our economy.
But that situation does not, of course, apply to imports. If we run down our cash savings because we have lost confidence in the value of money, our importers will provide us with the goods we want immediately, and that is what we have seen happening during the last 12 months. Our imports have gone up steeply. We are now importing about about£8,000 million worth of goods a year, and the Government, rightly, want to check immediately the import bill. I hope and believe that this is only a temporary measure. There is no doubt that the fewer duties there are in the world the better for all concerned.
I do not think, however, that these proposals will do very much except embarrass an enormous number of importers who have to find a lot of cash, because the protective element in the Motion is 2 per cent. I cannot see that there will be a vast swing over to import substitution because of a 2 per cent. protective element. It may create a difficulty for an importer if he is not able to find the finance to lodge with the Customs and Excise for six months and is, therefore, unable to import the goods. But if those goods are not already made in this country, I cannot see a manufacturer producing them here because of this 2 per cent. advantage.

Sir G. Nabarro: I am absolutely opposed to what my hon. Friend is saying. Will he justify the figure of 2 per cent.?

Sir D. Glover: The 2 per cent. arises from the 50 per cent. of the value of the import borrowed at the usual rate—say,


8 per cent.—from the bank for six months. The 50 per cent. of the value of the import brings the borrowing from the bank down to 4 per cent., because the deposit is for six months and not for 12 months. It is halved again, therefore, giving a net 2 per cent.

Sir G. Nabarro: That might be arithmetically correct, but the import deposit could not be financed in that way due to the cessation of special loans from the banks to finance it. But I accept the fact that many of the goods concerned cannot be obtained from alternative sources in this country.

Sir D. Glover: That is exactly what I was saying about alternative sources. I was pointing out that, as a result of this measure, we shall not automatically see anyone starting a plant for import substitution because of the difference of 2 per cent. If it was not competitive to manufacture these goods before, it is not likely to be competitive in the future. I accept—and this is where the whole thing breaks down—that, whilst we must put a brake on the import of goods, the way the Government propose to do it is the most dangerous and difficult they could have chosen. It will damage just the sort of firms we do not want to damage—the small or medium-sized active and growing units working to the limit of their capacity with very small borrowing powers. As a result of this measure, they will not be in a position to finance a great deal of their trade.
The measure will apply to a very wide range of goods. Certain firms trading to the limit of their resources are almost entirely importers. Unless the Bill contains more protection for them, such firms are likely to go out of business altogether. They are not like I.C.I., for example. Such big firms can get money from other sources even if the banks are in difficulty. Big powerful organisations will always succeed in obtaining finance. But many import merchants are able to trade because they give fairly long customer credit in this country. That credit is already out on previous sales and now they are suddenly presented with the fact that they must pay 50 per cent. deposit on succeeding imports. They will not have the capacity to solve the difficulty. Therefore, unless the Gov-

ernment do something in the Bill to safeguard such people, many of our most active medium-sized firms will go out of business.
But if there is anything in the idea that the Bill will bring about import substitution, the Government have chosen a most extraordinary list of exemptions. The list contains an enormous number of articles which the ordinary, non-expert person considers we could very well do without. Yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition made a powerful plea for the alteration of our system of agricultural support. Nearly all the items that our farmers could grow or produce to give additional help towards import substitution are in the exempted list. Yet the Minister of Agriculture, last week, was talking about import saving over the next four years of£160 million. Under the system we propose, we reckon that we could save£250 million a year. But when, with this measure, the Government have an opportunity to do something, nearly every commodity which our farmers could produce more of is on the list. This is not a sensible way to bring about import substitution.
It is difficult to come down to individual cases. I can understand sugar being exempted. But surely, if our international position is as parlous as it is supposed to be, we could manage with a little less sugar confectionery. Perhaps we could eat Clarnico instead of Lindt, from Switzerland. I would not have thought that sugar confectionery was vital to the future of the nation. It is not machinery, upon which we depend for export production. It is not something essential to the well being of the people. Yet it is on the exemption list.
I note, also, that preparations of meat, fish and crustaceans are exempted. Perhaps the Prime Minister, who is so fond of luxurious feeding—one sees pictures of him with his sauce bottle—is desparately anxious to continue to import caviare. The only time I have even eaten caviare—and I paid for it myself—was when I travelled the Atlantic on the "Queen Mary". I do not think that the nation would collapse if, for a couple of years, we did not have so much caviare. All these things are to be exempted, yet the whole purpose, if there is any purpose, is import substitution.
The hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Brian Parkyn) referred to chemicals which are vital to a particular process and which are not produced in this country. They are not exempt. My hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) pointed out that some chemicals which are essential to a certain production which goes for export on completion are not exempt. Machinery for use by plants producing goods for export is not essential. But the list of exemptions includes things which are not essential to the well being of the nation, not essential to our export effort and not even essential to keeping the Labour Party on the right side of the consumer.
Many of the exempted items are those which the man in the street would regard as unnecessary and whose import he would inhibit. By import substitution the man in the street does not mean having to work inferior machines when competing against the Germans, the French and the Americans in world markets. He does not mean not insisting on getting the latest machinery and having to buy an inferior British machine merely because there is a 50 per cent. deposit on the import of a superior foreign machine. Yet that is exactly what will happen under this half-baked Motion.
The Financial Secretary has told us that the Motion is so drafted that, although we may be able to add to the list of exemptions—and by the time we reach the Bill we shall have had many letters from our constituencies adding to the pressure to add more items to the list of exemptions. thus making the operation even less worth while—there will be no power to remove items. Any hon. Member who takes the trouble to read the list will find that it includes items which people would normally expect to be able to do without, or to replace by home produced products. I am surprised that the Financial Secretary's hon. Friends have not asked him to withdraw the Motion and to alter it so that we can both add to and subtract from the list of exemptions. The Motion has all been rushed. The Chancellor of the Exchequer himself was very woolly when, on Friday he announced his measures, and surely the list would be better balanced if hon. Members were able to add to and subtract from it.
I began by saying that in July I made a speech to say that imports were growing very fast and that exports were not growing as fast as we should like and that we were facing a financial crisis again. I regret to say that I have been proved right. I then said that some action should be taken to try to reduce the quantity of imports, particularly of nonessential items. I want to make it clear that I was then dealing, as I am now dealing, with the problems confronting the country.
The problem is that, as a result of the last four years, everybody overseas is as jittery as anything about the British currency and the way in which we manage our affairs, and we therefore have to be even stronger than we would need to be if there were confidence in our management at home. There is, therefore, a strong case for a temporary but firm reduction of imports while our exports grow to take a larger share of world markets.
I understand that the Opposition are to vote against the whole Bill, but in any case it ought to operate for a limited period. It should be only an expedient to do something towards solving a problem which, if the affairs of the nation are properly managed, ought to have disappeared inside 12 months. We want to make certain that we do not build into the economy a cumbersome, unjust and unworkable piece of machinery. The Bill should be passed for two years at the most and then be renewed only after full debate, because by that time it should no longer be necessary.
The Government have lost all the confidence of the nations and at home they have lost the confidence of the people. The difficulty is that we are discussing suggestions which would work in a climate of confidence, but which will not work in the present atmosphere. This is the Government's worry. Although I do not expect anybody to believe me, I say in a non-partisan spirit that the Government have now completely exhausted their credibility. When this happens, I do not believe that the nation can prosper with a continuation of the same management. I do not suggest that we should introduce a new system of "golden bowlers". I am glad to see the right hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) in his place; he is one of the


few in the present Administration to whom I would give a "golden bowler". But we shall not solve our problems by the new measures which the Chancellor announced on Friday. We shall begin to solve them only by a complete change of Administration and a new look for Britain all over the world.

12.29 p.m.

Mr. John Biggs-Davison: This has been an extraordinary debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) said that people were jittery both at home and abroad and that confidence had been lost in this country and overseas because of the mismanagement of our affairs by the Government. One has only to take the example of the management of this debate to know that this is an Administration which is incapable of managing anything. Today. it has put the House in a confused and intolerable position.
Once again, the House has been treated contemptuously. Many of my hon. Friends and I have sat through the entire debate both last night and this morning. It was only quite late in the progress of the debate that any representative of the Board of Trade attended on the Treasury Bench. We are very glad to see the Minister of State there now. This Money Resolution and the Bill to follow will affect exports as well as imports, as was brought out by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke) and others.
The House has been placed in an impossible position. So, I think, has one of the Ministers for whom my hon. Friends and I have a great regard—the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. He said that he was satisfied with the constitutional and legal propriety of what is being done under this Motion. He said that he is satisfied subject to what the Law Officers of the Crown may say. it is a curious aspect of this debate that we have a complicated legal point and we are deprived of the services of the Law Officers. If their services are needed, as I believe they are, and the Financial Secretary needed to be briefed on the constitutional and legal aspects of the Motion, why was he not briefed before the debate began?
This is a considerable innovation in our economic policy. One would have thought that all the constitutional and legal implications would have been thought out beforehand. The Financial Secretary is not even with us now. Perhaps he is in legal consultation somewhere.

Sir G. Nabarro: With the Law Officers?

Mr. Biggs-Davison: One would have thought that such a distinguished and talented member of this Administration would manage to be briefed before instead of after my hon. Friends, particularly my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northwich (Sir J. Foster) and my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page), had drawn attention to the possible constitutional and legal defects in the Motion.
Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Nott), I am not a root-and-branch man against what the Motion is trying to do. I am not a free trader. There is nothing in my political philosophy which makes me hostile to import regulation itself. It is no good intoning the anthem, as the sole speaker from the Liberal benches who has now disappeared did, "Britain is a trading nation", and disregarding the fact that our balance may be dangerously in the red. The Liberal hon. Member said that he was all in favour of the buccaneering spirit in our export trade. So am I, but national policy has to assist the buccaneer in the reign of Elizabeth II just as it did in the reign of Elizabeth I.
When exchange rates remain fixed the Government are faced with a choice between extreme deflation or some form of import regulation. That becomes inevitable, but, if we are to pursue a policy of import control, we should try to devise means to discriminate—that for me is not necessarily a dirty word—in favour of good trading partners—Her Majesty's Government have outraged their preferential partners in E.F.T.A.— and against those countries with whom we have an adverse balance.
I am rather surprised, the country being in the mess it is in under the present Government, that they have not got to imports regulation before now. I knew that they would get there in the end


when they consistently denied from the Treasury Bench that they contemplated import regulation. When I asked Questions they always said that this would invite retaliation. When the Financial Secretary returns from his confabulations with the Law Officers I should like to ask him what is the Government's estimate of the retaliation which will be invited as a result of the Motion.
I turn to the unfair hardship that will be immediately laid on a number of companies, in particularly small firms. I believe that there is a considerable number of such enterprises which are now threatened by unmerited bankruptcy. It may be more proper that this should be asked on Second Reading of the Bill, but I should like to have an estimate from the Government of how many bankruptcies they think will result from this system of import deposits. The hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) suggested that the Government should produce a popular pamphlet about this scheme. I can think of a title for it, "You, too, can go bankrupt."
I bring to the notice of the House the plight of a firm in which a constituent of mine is concerned, but in which I have no financial or personal interest. The firm has been engaged, as have other small companies, in importing foreign boats for the International Boat Show in this country. If the House adopts this Motion that firm will have to provide duty to the extent of£2,000 to be deposited with the Customs for six months interest-free. The firm is not unique in finding it extremely difficult with the present tightness of credit to obtain that extra capital at short notice.
Someone may say that this is an inessential import and ask why should a British firm want to import a foreign boat? That may be so. Perhaps we cannot afford it, but the first has obtained foreign currency for the purpose according to the prescribed procedure and so far as I know the International Boat Show is not disapproved of by Her Majesty's Government. The firm would now like to withdraw from the engagement to import the foreign boat. The point my constituent makes, and which I advance, is that companies in this position surely should not be expected to have the duty charged at the time when the goods are entered for warehousing—

as provided by paragraph (a) in the Motion—but the regulation should apply to the date of sailing.
Unfortunately, the Financial Secretary is not here. I am sure that he would be the first to appreciate the point about the hardship and possible bankruptcy which may be imposed on small enterprises in this country. The national economy depends as much on small firms as on any other undertakings. The Financial Secretary would be the first to appreciate this problem and to regard it sympathetically. There was some confusion in the answers which were given to questions asked from this side of the House about when the money has to be deposited. I draw some hope from that confusion. I hope that I may have some sympathetic response on this point before the debate is over, or at any rate when we get the Bill and discuss it on Second Reading.

12.40 p.m.

Mr Cyril Bence: I must admire, because I have seen it so often in the past, the very able way in which the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) put forward his points. It was an excellent debating exercise and was very skilled. I remember three of my hon. Friends, who used to be referred to as "the three midnight hags", doing the same thing.
The hon. Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison) said that he was not a free trader and that he accepted some form of protection. This is a further restriction on the movement of goods across the frontiers of nation States; this is an import control. I recognise that the Government must do something like this. We must exercise some import control in this situation, very much in the way that other nation States will have to exercise import control, because of a world crisis in the monetary mechanism.
Throughout my life, the crises in the world have been the failure, not of businessmen, industrialists or politicians, but of those who work the monetary machine. It is the monetary mechanism which has let us down every time. The scientists, engineers and technicians all over the world are producing more real wealth. The breakdown comes not in the production machine, not even in the distributing


machine, but in the monetary mechanism. But no one seems to bother.
We put this imposition on traders, importers and manufacturers. They have to bear more and more burdens. I know that there is a huge list of exemptions, but the purpose of these import controls is to try to help those who work the monetary machine to solve our monetary problems. It is on the politicians that the problem of solving this terrible recurring crisis of liquidity in the monetary mechanism falls.
Politicians. too, are at fault. There must be in the world thousands of millions of pound in real wealth circulating in building up huge armament resources. Yet politicians, bankers and financiers in all countries state time and again that in the foreseeable future war on a scale that we have had in the past is impossible and would not achieve its ends and that it is impossible to make economic or political decisions by war. Yet every nation—Russia, China and America included—insists on using about 10 per cent. of the world's resources on creating symbols of nationalism which are no longer justified and which cannot be justified because they would solve nothing.
We must accept this Motion in this situation. Again, we have an international crisis. It has been caused not by industrialists or trade unions—it is not the failure of the trade unions or of the workers of France, Germany, Britain or America—but by bankers and speculators and people who deal in money. There has been a breakdown of the monetary mechanism. It would be a good thing if politicians of all parties, industrialists and trade unions got together to discover why it is that, although we can produce more real wealth, the faster we do it the more often we are faced with a money crisis.
The trouble is the failure, not of Western civilisation or of its productive machine, but of its monetary mechanism. We are asking the people of this country, President de Gaulle will have asked the people of France and it may be that in five years the German Government will ask the German people to make sacrifices. Why?—Because of the friction in the monetary machine.
What is required is a European inquiry—indeed a Western inquiry—into the workings of what is known as international finance. Why is it that it can throw nations into such chaos? Since long before the war, since I was a youth, every crisis in Europe has been a crisis of money and not a crisis of production. The world can produce and distribute tremendous wealth. Engineers, scientists and technicians can abolish poverty—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will come to the Motion.

Mr Bence: Very well, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry that I have strayed from the Motion. However, I feel that, once again, we are not getting at the roots of the troubles of the Western international monetary system. We need a radical solution rather than tinkering by various nation States with individual problems.

12.46 p.m.

Sir Gerald Nabarro: I am greatly opposed to this Motion. I have sat throughout the proceedings since 10 o'clock this morning, endeavouring to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, and to explain why grave dislocation of trade in Britain will occur as a result of the proposals in this Measure. I shall not address myself at any stage to the controversy about the legalities associated with the Motion. That matter is better dealt with by my right hon. and learned Friends, who have put the point well. I hope that we shall have some clarification from the Law Officers before the Motion becomes effective.
Summarising my objections, they are threefold: first, that the Motion will be detrimental to our export trade, a point which has not been mentioned from this side of the House; secondly, that it will be highly inflationary; and, thirdly, as a consequence of the first two points, it will lead to grave dislocation of trade.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: This point has been raised in the debate. I raised it when referring to what my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke) said.

Sir G. Nabarro: I apologise. I did not hear the early stages of the debate last evening. If the point was raised


then, I apologise. I said that it had not been raised this morning.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: It was raised by me.

Sir G. Nabarro: The Treasury is blind to the fact that trade is a two-way affair and that any attempt to diminish the entry of manufactured goods into Britain will lead to reciprocal measures by countries all over the world which buy substantial quantities of British exports.
I wish to deal with a case which has been referred to me this morning by my right hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate (Mr. Ramsden) on behalf of the Yorkshire branch in Leeds of the Engineering Industries Association and which illustrates the point I am seeking to make. This concern says that a diminution in its export trade will be inevitable as a result of the Motion. Airedale Springs, of Keighley, placed an order with a West German machine tool manufacturer for delivery of a machine tool valued at£6,000 which is due in this country within 14 days.
The purpose of that machine tool is to manufacture, more cheaply and more expeditiously, springs for the Ford Motor Co. in Detroit. It is a machine tool which will be used solely for the export of British components for American cars, British components made from steel produced in this country. The importer has applied to his bank for 50 per cent. of the ad valorem landed price of the machine tool, namely,£3,000.
The bank has refused to lend the money because its interpretation of the Chancellor's statement on import deposits is that such deposits should not be financed by the banks. But that statement made by the Chancellor last Friday is directly contradictory to his earlier statements, which are that money should always be available to the banks to finance and promote the export trade.

Mr. James Ramsden: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making the point. Will he agree that it is essential for Treasury Ministers to give clearer guidance to banks on this matter than was given by the Chancellor in his statement on Friday last?

Sir G. Nabarro: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving me this case as an example of what I have in mind.
I pass on to the Chancellor's adjudication, what he really means. If I had to adjudicate as a bank manager in this case I should say that this machine tool was required for the production of goods for export, and I would, therefore, lend the£3,000 to finance the import deposit. But the bank manager takes the contrary view. This is within the ambit of the Financial Secretary; he need not consult a Law Officer; he should be able to make up his own mind. Will he this morning confirm that this tool is for the purpose of promoting export trade and therefore the deposit should be available as a loan from a bank?
But, much worse, the motor trade in Birmingham will be gravely prejudiced by the import deposits scheme. The Times this morning in its Business News section, on the front page, draws attention in two contributions, only one of which I shall call in aid, to the fears of steel shortages. Although we are a great steel-producing nation, we do not universally and ubiquitously produce every class and type of steel which is used in every kind of engineering export product. We import quite a lot. No facilities are available in this country to replace those imports of steel.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) spoke of setting up plants to manufacture import substitution materials. Such a plant could not be set up at short notice to manufacture classes of steel that we habitually bring in from continental and other sources.
Is it known that steel stockists in this country work on a margin of only 1 to 2 per cent.? They cannot possibly finance a 50 per cent. import deposit now demanded by the Government since steel is not an exempted item. I should have been a far happier man in making my speech had one of the items been rolled and re-rolled steel products, the nature of which, I fancy, the Financial Secretary would be able to identify; bars, rounds, rods and a vast range of products of that kind used at every stage of engineering production, be it mechanical, electrical or civil engineering.
Let us see what The Times says this morning, and all credit to the newspaper


for reporting it on the front page of its Business News section:
A warning that the 50 per cent. imports deposit scheme could lead to shortages of some types of steel and make necessary rescheduling of production in the car industry, was given yesterday by the Association of Exporters and Importers of Iron and Steel in the United Kingdom.
Alexander Shenkman, chairman of the association, said it was ludicrous that steel, a raw material for British industry, should be subject to the deposit, particularly as it was used in the manufacture of products which were exported, or which were import savers.
Even if it is accepted that these goods should come in to the scheme, in many cases the British Steel Corporation would probably not be able to make good the supply in time to avoid shortages.
He pointed out that if orders already placed for deliveries up to the end of February had to be cancelled because of the deposit scheme, in many cases the British Steel Corporation would probably not be able to make good the supply in time to avoid shortages. He said the scheme could be ruinous for the association's members who were working on profit margins of 1–2 per cent.
Therefore, I ask the Financial Secretary to answer the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover). Is this list of exempted products a final list? Can it be added to during the passage of the Bill and, if it can be added to, will the Financial Secretary make certain that rolled and re-rolled steel products are high on the list, in view of their valuable potential for promoting the export of British goods?
Further, and I must labour this point—I am delighted to have the support of the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. O'Malley), which he has shown by his nodded assent to what I am saying. He sits for a steel manufacturing constituency and he ought to support me. There is no greater industry in Rotherham than engineering. He should be acclaiming loudly "Hear, hear" everything that is emanating from South Worcestershire which is valid, important and valuable to the engineering exports of Rotherham. I gladly give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Brian O'Malley: I was not nodding at the hon. Gentleman. Nevertheless, as he knows, I would look after the interests of the steel industry.

Sir G. Nabarro: If the hon. Member for Rotherham was not nodding assent,

he is guilty of dereliction of duty and deserves to lose his seat at the next General Election.
Further, in The Times Business News today is this passage:

SCHEME CAN STOP STEEL IMPORT PLAN

The new 50 per cent. import deposit looks like killing a move by a consortium of Midland steel stockholders to import sheet steel from Germany at prices well below those expected after the British Steel Corporation's new price schedules come into operation.

A spokesman for Digbeth Steel Stockholders of Birmingham, said his firm was largely a user of home-produced steel. Two German companies had offered particularly advantageous prices—better than could be expected or, the home market, even taking into account the loyalty rebate for buying at home."

Does the Financial Secretary seek to deny today that he is raising the price of British exports and making us less competitive overseas at a time when the Chancellor of the Exchequer is prating that we require expanded and enlarged sales of British manufactured goods all over the world?

I conclude with this comment from the same article:
A building contractor importing Scandinavian timber sections said: 'Money is already almost non-existent to finance the small man. Who will be prepared to put it up for use as a deposit, to be tied up for six months without interest?'".
The second major import affected by the Order with which I wish to deal is timber, which is the largest single commodity imported into this country. We bring in more than£200 million worth of it every year.

Most hon. Members think of timber as deals, sleeper blocks, soft woods, and so on, going to sawmills for reconversion, but that is not the true position. Timber technology has moved a great deal since the First World War. A major import of a wood product which is vitally concerned with our export trade is plywood. It is an interesting reflection that the Order delineates in items 44.01 to 44.12:
Wood, not planed or further manufactured.
That means deals, sleeper blocks, rough hewn and rough sawn timber, softwoods and hardwoods. They are exempted, but plywood is evidently classified as a manufactured product.

What do we do with the plywood we import—the tens of millions of pounds


worth of it every year? Only about one-half of 1 per cent. of our total consumption of plywood is manufactured in Britain, and this comprises the fairly expensive grades of this commodity. The plywood that comes here principally goes to two end uses: first, for building—notably houses—and, secondly, for export packaging to save bulk in ships. Most heavy packages going overseas today which are beyond the range of a carton package are packed in plywood in preference to soft wood packaging because plywood saves a great deal in bulk.

The Order means that the Government will take millions of pounds in import deposits from plywood importers in respect of raw materials which arc then reconverted and used for packaging essential British exports on an economic basis to go, all over the world. [Interruption.] I am delighted to see the Financial Secretary whispering to his colleague the Minister of State at the Board of Trade, seated beside him. I note that the hon. Gentleman told his hon. Friend that I had made a good point in connection with both matters about which I have spoken. I lipread from a great distance.

Will the Financial Secretary exempt, before the Statute is enacted, these two major categories of British imports which are absolutely essential for the promotion of our international export trade? I refer, first, to rolled and re-rolled steel products and other steel imports and, secondly, to plywood. These should be included in the list and exempted from the import deposit scheme.

I do not intend to stray into the contributions I shall make on Second Reading and later stages of the Bill when it appears. I am completely opposed to this method of restricting imports into Britain, which I believe will result in a grave dislocation to our trade and a diminution, rather than an increase, in our exports. I hope, therefore, that my non. Friends will be unremitting in their opposition to the Bill when it comes before the House on Thursday and will vote against all its stages.

1.5 p.m.

Mr. John Page: I shall he brief because the House is anxious to hear the reply of the Financial Secretary.
The debate has shown that, from both the legal point of view and the list of exempted goods, it is disastrous to legislate on important matters in a hurry. We are told that importers may freely bring in commodities like caviare, lobsters, confectionery, avocado pears and even guano and strawberries without penalty, while the sensible importation of genuine raw materials will be penalised.
As we have heard that it will be possible to add to the list of commodities itemised when we debate the Bill, I hope that the Financial Secretary—and as the Minister of State at the Board of Trade is in his place, this will particularly concern him—will act on an illogicallity in the list. Under items 40.01, 40.03 and 40.04 we see that
Natural rubber.
Reclaimed and waste rubber
are exempted. Significant by its absence is 40.02, synthetic rubber, in which I have an indirect interest as a user but not an importer. Nothing could be more absurd than to pretend that synthetic rubber is any less of a raw material than natural rubber. An even greater absurdity is that reclaimed and waste rubber is covered under items 40.03 and 40.04, whereas synthetic rubber is excluded. We have here an example of the exclusion of synthetic rubber, even though included is synthetic rubber which has had two or three extra processes involved in it.
This is a discrimination which I hope the Government will amend when the Bill is introduced. If not, industry which uses these products and which employs about 200,000 people will have an unnecessary burden to face. Nobody can say that there is any likelihood of synthetic rubber in its manufactured state being used for sale in the shops at Christmas or for any of the purposes which the Measure is designed to prevent.

1.9 p.m.

Mr. Harold Lever: I should like, at the outset, to clear up a point so that there is no vagueness or ambiguity about what the position will be in law in respect of the collection of deposits, the amendment of the list of exemptions, and so on.
As I have indicated in assurances to the House, the scheme will be operated so that from the passing of this Ways and Means Motion, this duty of Customs will be imposed in a way that provided


that security is given to the satisfaction of the Customs—that Department will, of course, operate in good faith in assessing whether the security is reasonable; nobody must arrive with his prize bullock, however valuable it may be, as security—that will suffice to cover the period between the passing of this Motion and the legislation. I think that is what hon. and right hon. Members wanted, and that is what they shall have. No change will be made in this unless and until a Law Officer comes to the House, and an opportunity for a debate on the point is accorded.
Hon. Members will realise that this is a point of importance, but of narrow range, because as soon as the Act becomes law we take the cash, and no security of any kind. I do not want anybody to think that they can give bonds afterwards. I am dealing with the narrow but important period between the Ways and Means Motion and the Act. I do not want my undertaking to be extended to diminish the undoubted lawful powers of the Government from the passing of the Act—
An Hon. Members the Financial Secretary aware that there is some confusion in the Treasury even this morning? I attended a meeting at the Treasury, at which we wanted to know whether paper would pay the import deposit. The Treasury said that if it was imported after midnight tonight duty would have to be paid for the importation. Would the hon. Gentleman clear up this point immediately with the Treasury, because ii is creating confusion?

Mr. Lever: Without being unduly immodest, I can say that the House may assume that the explicit undertaking I have given to the House will be honoured, at any rate as long as I am a member of the Government—and, of course, ought to be honoured even if I were not a member of the Government. It is unlikely that this change is imminent. I can give the House the firmest possible assurance that a bond will be taken, if it is satisfactory in other respects, in the discretion, in good faith, by the Revenue until the Act comes into force. Where no satisfactory bond is available, cash will be adequate security. It would penalise the importer to hold otherivise—I think that is agreed on both sides.
I am not ruling on the law—I am not here in a legal capacity. I am ruling on what will happen in this case, with the assurance to hon. Members that when inviting them to pass the Ways and Means Motion I record the fact that if the House passes the Motion it does so on the faith of the assurance I have given.
The second point concerns exemptions. I must tell hon. Members who are anxious to urge deletions from the exemption list that even if the Motion gave power to delete from the list it would be a power exercisable only by Government and not by any hon. Member, since it would impose a Customs charge. It is very flattering that so many hon. Members want to give the Government power to move Amendments to narrow the list of exemptions. Since the Government have no such desire, even if I had widened the Ways and Means Motion hon. Members would have remained equally ungratified.
The exemptions stand, but can be increased by Amendment tabled by the Government or by hon. Members opposite. Any hon. Member. and many hon. Members have expressed very interesting points of view, can, when the Bill conies before the House, move Amendments to add exemptions to the list. The hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) can be both a Dr. Jekyll and a Mr. Hyde: a Dr. Jekyll, with continued and obstructive noise—is one part of him—and Mr. Hyde, with very serious, congent, well-documented argument is the other. We have had him in both capacities—

Sir G. Nabarro: The Financial Secretary has put it the wrong way round.

Mr. Lever: Whichever it is, the hon. Gentleman has appeared in both capacities today.
I have listened with great care to what he had to say about the need for further exemptions, and this will be very carefully considered between now and the Committee stage. I only hope that the hon. Gentleman will not be intimidated by anything I have said this morning from exercising his full rights as a private Member, and will not feel obliged to remain silent throughout the Committee stage. As he has cogent and interesting points to draw to the attention of the Government and the House, I hope that he will feel encouraged to do so.
I will not weary the House with a detailed examination, because I have no power in this respect, of the many suggested Amendments to the list. The power can be exercised only when the Bill comes forward, and if it is any satisfaction to hon. Members there is a lubrication provision, which I have accepted, in the very short period between the Ways and Means Motion and the operation of the Act. Business firms can give bonds to secure their liability, and if something is exempted by the time the Act is passed, the bonds will be torn up or the deposit refunded immediately. For that reason, I hope that the House will forgive me if I do not discuss which articles might be considered for further exemption.
The hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke) asked what we were to do about wines, for example, brought in bulk to this country to be processed and re-exported. Wines can be bonded and bottled in the warehouse, and in that case the deposit will not be payable, although it is payable—

Mr. Robert Cooke: I hope that the Financial Secretary is aware, or will find out, that this is quite unworkable in practice. If it turns out to be completely unworkable in practice it may well turn the trade from this country to the countries of origin, Spain and Portugal, and we will never get it back. I therefore hope that he will look at this point again, and will give an undertaking that, if necessary, the Government will themselves act, and not leave it to hon. Members to do so at a later stage.

Mr. Lever: I thought that I had made it plain that the Government would give consideration to everything that has been said in this debate. I did not want the more nervous Members, such as the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South, to feel that they were precluded from making a contribution when the Committee stage is reached. I hope that the House will not think it discourteous of me—because, as I say, I have no power —if I dc not go into the details, but there are one or two things I should say in answer to the debate.
There is, first, the question of bank help. As I understand, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made it clear that in the initial stages, to cover people who imported without the knowledge of an

import deposit being required, the banks will be asked to look sympathetically at those cases. The point has been taken that there should be clearer and more expanded information given to the public as well as to the banks about what our policy is on that aspect, and I will see that attention is given to it so that people and the banks will know where they stand.
I am now left with only one final point to deal with, and that is the complaint that this step is restrictionist; that it offends the spirit of the G.A.T.T. and of E.F.T.A. and that we are trying to do as much as we can get away with—as one hon. Member put it—within these treaties. This is certainly not the case. The House must bear in mind that this scheme, very reluctantly adopted by the Government, in relation to a selective pressure on the liquidity of importers is of a temporary nature.
Although one would not gather it from some of the speeches we have had, it does not, nor is it intended to, constitute an absolute barrier to any particular type of import. Some hon. Members addressed the House as though we were forbidding the import of a specially required piece of aluminium which is a small component, in the main, export fabrication. Nothing of that kind is involved here. Provided that half the cost of that article is deposited and left with the Customs for six months, the manufacturers may import it. Our action is intended to be the lightest possible interference with the normal free flow of trade that could be conceived—and even that on a temporary basis.
We think, on balance, that the contribution this will make towards swiftly reducing our imports and bringing our balance of payments into surplus will not merely be to our advantage but will be a contribution to the kind of monetary and economic stability which the world at this point in time so urgently needs. We are not doing this as a turning away from the liberalisation of trade. It is done temporarily, reluctantly and as a squeeze on the liquidity of importers. It is not a barrier to importation and there is no desire to destroy or derogate from the importance of the liberalisation of trade covered in E.F.T.A. and the G.A.T.T. Treaty.

Mr. Nott: The hon. Gentleman must make up his mind. Is it to reduce imports, or is the intention to maintain the maximum liberalisation of trade? It is one way or the other. Presumably, it has been put on with the specific intent of reducing imports. That cannot liberalise trade.

Mr. Lever: I said that it will presumably act to reduce imports temporarily. It will have been noticed that time of the powers we are seeking. It is temporary—

Mr. Nott: Like Income Tax.

Mr. Lever: Unlike Income Tax, it would not need another Act of Parliament to renew it. [Interruption.] I suppose that that is not so. All that I can say is in anything like the present circumstances I would find it deplorable to renew any form of restriction, and it is not our intention to do so. Our intention at present is to bring this to an end automatically after 12 months. It is true that during that period it will help to reduce imports. That is the purpose of it, but it will do so in the least restrictionist way, namely by impacting selectively upon the importer.

Sir G. Nabairo: What is the value of temporarily reducing imports, if as a corollary of that, our export trade is commensurately reduced by other countries taking reciprocal action against us?

Mr. Lever: I will go into this at greater length when time is not so pressing. The hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Nott) is surely wrong in supposing that any form of import substitution can only be obtained at the expense of diverting resources that would otherwise be exported. If that were true one could never secure any alteration in the ratio between one's exports and imports and we have to do so. In those circumstances, I hope that the House will now feel able to pass this Motion for the purposes I have outlined.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in upon the Resolution by the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. John Diamond, Mr. Harold Lever, and Mr. Dick Taverne.

Customs (Import Deposits) Bill

Bill to grant a new duty of Customs repayable after a specified period, presented accordingly and read the First time; to be read a Second time this day and to be printed. [Bill 16.]

ELECTRICITY (SCOTLAND) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question put (pursuant to Standing Order No. 62 (Public Bills relating exclusively to Scotland)), That the Bill be committed to the Scottish Standing Committee—[Mr. loan L Evans.]

Question agreed to.

Bill (deemed to have been read a Second time) committed to the Scottish Standing Committee.

ELECTRICITY (SCOTLAND) [MONEY]

Queen's Recommendation having beet; signified—

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to increase the statutory limits imposed on the amounts outstanding in respect of borrowings by the Scottish Electricity Boards, it is expedient to authorise such increases in the sums falling to be paid out of or into the National Loans Fund or the Consolidated Fund as may result from provisions of the said Act of the present Session—

(i) increasing to£800 million the limit imposed on the aggregate amount outstanding in respect of borrowings by the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board or the South of Scotland Electricity Board, or
(ii) consequentially increasing the sums that may be advanced to the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board and the South of Scotland Electricity Board under section 2 of the Electricity and Gas Act 1963.—[Mr. Harold Lever.]

ADJOURNMENT

The Business having been concluded. Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House with. out Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order (Sittings of the House (Suspended Sittings)).

Adjourned at twenty-three minutes past One o'clock p.m.

Preamble

The House met a half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Germany (Bonn Meeting)

Mr. Ridley: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on his recent negotiations with the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany, in particular with regard to the continuing balance of payments surplus run by the Federal Republic.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Roy Jenkins): I have nothing to add to my statement on 22nd November about the discussions at the Group of Ten meeting in Bonn.

Mr. Ridley: Did the Prime Minister really tell the German Ambassador that he would have to take action in regard to defence if the mark was not up-valued? Will the Chancellor consider letting the exchange rate float after this traumatic experience in the last year or two?

Mr. Jenkins: In reply to the second part of that supplementary question, I made it absolutely clear in my statement on Friday afternoon and again yesterday that we are determined to maintain the parity and will take, and have taken, all necessary measures to that end.
In reply to the first part of the question, communications between Governments are always confidential. As to matters of the conference, Professor Schiller, as Chairman, at the beginning of the conference asked that in view of the seriousness of the issues involved a high degree of confidentiality should be accorded the proceedings. Therefore, I assume that nothing that has emerged could come from the

German Government, and I propose to observe that confidentiality.

Mr. Dickens: Does the Chancellor appreciate that many of us on these benches feel that the attitude of the West German Government at present is one of arrogance and selfishness? Is not my right hon. Friend aware that some of us want the Government to aproach Mr. Schweitzer at the I.M.F. with a view to bringing pressure to bear on the West German Government because they are maintaining a very high surplus on balance of payments, and this is a crime against world trade? Secondly—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must learn to put brief questions.

Mr. Dickens: I shall complete my question as rapidly as possible, Sir. Should not the Government now take steps to reduce the cost of the British Army of the Rhine by withdrawing, say, a token force of 10,000?

Mr. Jenkins: I indicated yesterday that I thought that there are obligations upon surplus as well as upon deficit countries. As 1 said on Friday in reply to my hon. Friend, we have considerable problems in the international monetary system at the moment. These can be solved only by international co-operation, and I do not think that it helps to achieve this by using language of that sort against anybody.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: Does not the Chancellor agree that, at a time when we are trying to achieve a surplus, it cannot help to use language such as that which the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Dickens) has used?

Income Tax (Simplification)

Sir B. Rhys Williams: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will take steps to simplify the calculation and collection of Income Tax by withdrawing the personal, married, child, dependent relatives', housekeeper's, age and blind persons' allowances, or any of them, and making restitution to taxpayers by the payment of positive allowances in lieu.

The Chief Secretary of the Treasury (Mr. John Diamond): I would draw the hon. Member's attention to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Chigwell


(Mr. Biggs-Davison) on 7th March, 1968. —[Vol. 760, c. 134.]

Sir B. Rhys Williams: Does the Chiet Secretary appreciate the enormous benefits he would confer on virtually every employer, in savings both of time and expense, if he were to abolish the present system of Pay-As-You-Earn? Is there a single valid reason for clinging to the existing system?

Mr. Diamond: I appreciate that the present system of Pay-As-You-Earn, which has been examined many times, imposes certain time-consuming responsibilities on employers; but it is the best method of tax collection that we have so far achieved.

Mr. Frederic Harris: Does not the Chief Secretary appreciate that the public are crying out for a simplification of the present taxation system which they do not understand and which often their advisers do not understand?

Mr. Diamond: I am crying out for a simplification of the tax system. As soon as I try to simplify it in any way, the public insists on having tailor-made tax for each individual member of the public.

Graduated National Insurance Contributions (Collection)

Sir B. Rhys Williams: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will take steps to integrate the system for collection of graduated National Insurance contributions with the existing systems for collection of taxes graduated to income.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Harold Lever): The collection of graduated National Insurance contributions has been linked with the collection of Income Tax under P.A.Y.E. since the graduated scheme was introduced.

Sir B. Rhys Williams: Is there any reason for levying two income taxes simultaneously? Why not integrate Income Tax completely into the National Insurance system?

Mr. Lever: What the hon. Gentleman apparently desires by implication in his Question is in fact being done.

Scotland

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the value of total Government help to industry in Scotland in 1963, 1965 and 1967, respectively.

Mr. Diamond: The identifiable financial assistance, excluding agriculture and fishing, was, in the respective financial years,£7 million,£8 million and£79 million.

Mr. Dalyell: Whatever the Opposition's thoughts might be about cutting down help to factories in development areas, is it not a fact that figures of this kind provide the explanation for the dramatically improved youth employment situation in Scotland, details of which we were given yesterday?

Mr. Diamond: It is a dramatic improvement. I can help my hon. Friend further by adding that, in comparison with Great Britain as a whole, about 15 per cent.—that is, as compared with 10 per cent. on a population basis—of the identifiable assistance went to Scotland.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: Does the reply take into account the investment and depreciation allowances which formed one of the methods being used in 1963?

Mr. Diamond: No, it does not take depreciation allowances into account. It takes into account investment grants.

Tax Collection

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the approximate cost of collecting£1 million in Income Tax,£1 million in tax from Surtax,£1 million in Capital Gains Tax,£1 million in Corporation Tax, and£1 million in Selective Employment Tax, respectively; and if he will make a statement on the number of civil servants involved in collecting various forms of taxation.

Mr. Harold Lever: It is not practicable to provide separate figures for each Inland Revenue tax. In 1966–67 collection of the four Inland Revenue taxes specified cost approximately£13,800 per million pounds, or 1.38 per cent. The administrative costs of Selective Employment Tax on both collection and repayment are expected this year to amount


to£3,852 per million pounds, or 0.385 per cent. Approximately 84,000 civil servants are employed for the purpose of administering taxes.

Mr. Dalyell: Does my hon. Friend detect a certain inconsistency among those who both call for a reduction in the Civil Service and want to abolish the Selective Employment Tax?

Mr. Lever: Yes, but not an inconsistency in solitude.

Mr. David Howell: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind nevertheless that approximately the same number of people are employed in the Federal Government of the United States in collecting tax from a population four times the size of ours, and is there not a lesson here for possible reductions in staff and increased use of mechanical and electronic means for assessing and collecting taxes?

Mr. Lever: That sort of supplementary question provides the maximum satisfaction to the questioner and the minimum possibility of providing information to the answerer.

Personal Savings

Mr. Biffen: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the estimated percentage of the gross domestic product represented by personal savings at the latest available date for the curret year; and how this compares with the estimated percentage for the corresponding period in the previous year.

Mr. Harold Lever: On a seasonally adjusted basis, it is estimated that personal saving represented 6.1 per cent. of gross domestic product at current factor cost in the first half of 1968. This compares with 6.2 per cent. in the same period of 1967

Mr. Biffen: Does not the decline, modest though it be, indicate that the public prudently felt that the money in their pocket would be diminished as a consequence of devaluation, and does the Financial Secretary imagine that as a result of the Government's policies announced over the past few days personal savings as a percentage of total personal income will rise?

Mr. Lever: The inferences drawn on the basis of six months' experience in

two years seem to me somewhat exaggerated.

Mr. William Hamilton: Can my hon. Friend hold out any hope of finding a new incentive to saving which does not involve a simple transfer from one kind of saving to another?

Mr. Lever: We are earnestly engaged on that task.

National Savings

Mr. Biffen: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the estimated share of personal savings represented by National Savings during the current year; and how this compares with the share for the corresponding period during the previous year.

Sir G. Nabarro: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the aggregation of National Savings in the 10 months to the end of October, 1968; how this compares with the 10 months ended 31st October, 1967; what proportion of all personal savings is now represented by National Savings; and what steps he is taking to increase all forms of personal savings.

Mr. Harold Lever: Total National Savings increased by£74.3 million in the nine months to the end of September, 1968, the latest convenient date, compared with an increase of£131.3 million in the corresponding period of 1967. The latest estimates suggest that National Savings amounted to 6 per cent. of personal savings in the first half of 1968. In the corresponding period of 1967 they amounted to 8 per cent. of personal saving. Assessing ways of stimulating personal savings is a continuous process; and, as the Chancellor told the House on 2nd July, the possibilities of a new development in contractual savings are being re-examined. I cannot, however, anticipate the outcome of this review.

Mr. Biffen: The kernel of the hon. Gentleman's answer is that National Savings as a percentage of total personal savings declined between the two periods referred to from 8 to 6 per cent. Why does the hon. Gentleman think that the public are so reluctant to lend their money to the Government?

Mr. Lever: The ratio of National Savings to total saving, which is the


important figure, varies from year to year. In 1967, it varied because of the changes made in the Budget which allowed great increases in Savings Certificates sales and we have not yet had time to see corresponding increases in 1968.

Sir G. Nabarro: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that what the general public are apprehensive of is the present highly inflationary position resulting from the Chancellor's package last Friday? Will he assure the House, on behalf of the Chancellor, that we shall not have to wait till the Budget of April, 1969, for him to match his words by deeds and take the important anti-inflationary action of stimulating personal savings?

Mr. Lever: In so far as the hon. Gentleman relates the decline in National Savings to my right hon. Friend's statement last Friday, I would suppose that there was considerable lack of Budget security.

Mr. Macdonald: If savings, both national and private, are desirable, as they are, and should be encouraged, can my hon. Friend tell me at what point a man changes from being an honest small saver into being a bloated capitalist tycoon?

Mr. Lever: I think that that depends upon the subjective, aesthetic and political apparatus of the spectator.

Sir C. Osborne: As there is about£8,000 million in the National Savings Movement which is repayable on demand, how can the Chancellor's wage freeze curtail spending in the shops when all this flood of money could be brought in instantly as purchasing power?

Mr. Lever: That is a factor which all Chancellors have to take into consideration, but the sacred obligation to make repayments of National Savings must remain unimpaired.

Sir G. Nabarro: Having regard to the unsatisfactory reply to Question No. 41, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Self-adjusting Beds (Tax)

Mr. Kenneth Baker: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will add the self-adjustable bed for invalids

made by H. Bickerton Limited to the list of those items that are exempt from Purchase Tax, since this Company sells this bed only to invalids, will change its sales literature to state this, and is prepared to restrict deliveries to cases approved by a doctor or a local health authority.

Mr. Diamond: No, Sir. I can only repeat what my hon. and learned Friend said on 15th October, namely that it would not be practicable to make an exemption for invalid beds, still less for an individual type of bed made by one particular company.—[Vol. 770, c. 191.]

Mr. Baker: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that this is the second occasion on which I have raised this matter, and that on the first occasion it was suggested that the firm sold beds to the fit as well as to the disabled? Now that the firm has said that it sells beds only to the disabled and will sell beds only to the disabled, why cannot the Government be a little more humane and sensible, since these beds are for near-paralysed people who would otherwise have to go into hospital?

Mr. Diamond: I am sympathetic to the hon. Gentleman's approach, and particularly so as this is known as the Bickerton-Marples self-adjusting bed—

Mr. Baker: It has nothing to do with my right hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Mr. Marples).

Mr. Diamond: —but it is the usual problem of the purpose to which the bed is put. I take it that the hon. Gentleman refers to people of ill health. I can imagine beds being supplied for that purpose and also being used by people of good health who would be only too happy, for a variety of reasons, to use beds which are both comfortable and self-adjusting.

Surtax

Mr. Kenneth Baker: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what he estimates to be the cost of raising the starting level of Surtax on earned incomes to£7,000 per annum and to£10,000 per annum.

Mr. Harold Lever: About£25 million and£45 million, respectively, if the result was achieved by increasing the special earnings allowance for Surtax.

Mr. Baker: Does the Financial Secretary recall the speech which he made two weekends ago about the need for incentives in our tax system? Would he not agree that those British executives who receive earned incomes of between£5,000 and£10,000 per annum are the most highly taxed in the world?

Mr. Lever: I shall reflect upon what the hon. Gentleman has said.

Mr. Heifer: Will my hon. Friend take into consideration the views of hon. Members on this side who would strongly oppose any suggestion that there should be so-called incentives in that direction? If these people are the most highly taxed in the world, as they are making the highest incomes, is there anything wrong in that?

Mr. Lever: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will reflect upon what my hon. Friend has said.

Imports (Control)

Mrs. Renée Short: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will now reconsider his refusal to introduce import quotas or other methods of controlling imports in the interests of the national economy.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: I would refer the hon. Member to my statement to the House on 22nd November.

Mrs. Short: May I take this opportunity of thanking my right hon. Friend for adopting some of the policies that some of us have been urging on him for a long time, particularly with regard to import control? Will he reconsider the selectivity that he has imposed, on certain foodstuffs in particular, in order to assist his right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, who is very anxious to save even more money now spent on importing foreign foodstuffs?

Mr. Jenkins: No, Sir. I think that our decision that the scheme should apply to a large proportion, but by no means the whole, of our imports was the right basis on which to proceed. It would be a great mistake at this stage to vary the scheme.

Mr.Hastings: Does not the Chancellor realise that the pattern of trade

is so intricate that by this bludgeon of a measure he is likely to harm almost as many exporters indirectly as importers directly? Has he taken any steps yet to find out how many companies are bankrupt already since his announcement?

Mr. Jenkins: No, Sir. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman, who is always rather a bludgeon with words, should refer in this way to suggestions put forward by his right hon. Friends the Members for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) and Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod).

Inland Revenue Computer (Siting)

Mr. Ridsdale: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why the computer for the Inland Revenue to serve the eastern area, including Essex and other neighbouring counties, is being situated in Tyneside and the North-East.

Mr. Harold Lever: The Tyneside area was selected because it was an area which both met the operational requirements of the Inland Revenue and accorded with the Government's regional development policy. The decision was taken after the most careful review of the alternatives both inside and outside the eastern region.

Mr. Ridsdale: As the eastern region is a comparatively low wage area and has some places of unemployment higher than the north-east, would the hon. Gentleman look at this again?

Mr. Lever: I cannot undertake to do that. The decision was taken only after the most exhaustive and lengthy examination.

Mr. Tinn: Is my hon. Friend aware that the decision was welcomed in the North-East, where the male unemployment rate is 6.4 per cent., and that it is hoped that the Government will press ahead even more vigorously with the policy of devolution of Government offices?

Mr. Lever: The Government are doing their best to meet the kind of thing my hon. Friend has in mind. I am grateful for his support.

Widows

Mr. William Price: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what tax changes he is proposing to make in relation to widows.

Mr. Harold Lever: I cannot add to the Answer given to my hon. Friend on 26th June, 1968.

Mr. Price: Whilst this is hardly the opportune time to ask the Chancellor for concessions, would not my hon. Friend agree that over the years widows have had a rough deal from successive Governments? Can he hold out any hope for the longer term?

Mr. Lever: All times are appropriate for asking for concessions. No time is appropriate for predicting them.

Mr. John Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman consider the simple expedient of raising the starting level of Income Tax for all widows?

Mr. Lever: Such suggestions are always carefully considered, but one cannot anticipate the Chancellor's Budget statement.

Overseas Debt

Mr. Marten: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the total amount of the United Kingdom's overseas debt incurred since October 1964; and when it must be repaid.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: The sum of£1,923 million was borrowed by the Government, of which£585 million has been repaid, and the present value of the amount outstanding is£1,452 million. I will circulate details, including repayment dates, in the Official Report. These SUMS exclude Central Bank transactions.

Mr. Marten: But if one adds on to it the Central Bank transactions, does not that mean that from now until about 1974 Britain must earn a surplus on her balance of payments of about£500 million a year before any direct benefit accrues to the British people? Is that the extent to which the country has been mortgaged?

Mr. Jenkins: No, Sir. I have always indicated that we need very substantial surpluses in order to meet our debt repayment. It is not possible to calculate exactly how much they will be, because there are other factors in the equation—the movement of funds into or out of the

country, as the case may be. I have never concealed that there are very substantial surpluses to be earned. I do not think that we have to look beyond this for benefit. I believe that there is real benefit to be gained from reducing our debt and achieving a surplus position at the present time.

Mr. Barnett: Is not it absurd to be talking about repayment of the whole of the debts in so short a period, when once we are in surplus it will be a comparatively simple matter to fund them over a very much longer period?

Mr. Jenkins: My hon. Friend is not right when he suggests that we do not have a considerable and formidable problem ahead of us. He is right when he says that it is not something which can be calculated on a month to month or year to year basis.

Mr. Hordem: Will the Chancellor now say what is the size of the debt incurred under the Basle arrangement?

Mr. Jenkins: No, Sir. I do not propose to give the fluctuations from time to time in this. In reply to a question from the right hon. Member for Enfield West (Mr. lain Macleod) who asked whether the amount of drawing that we could make, and which is available to us as a result of the rundown of the sterling balances since the end of March, was of the order of 600 million dollars, I indicated that it was. I indicate now that there has been since then some rebuilding of sterling balances, which has reduced the 600 million dollars. But I do not think it appropriate, and I do not propose now or in the future, to give the exact figures from month to month.

Mr. Michael Foot: Is it not the case that in the period from the date in the Question there has also been a very heavy export of capital from this country? What fresh measures is my right hon. Friend taking to control this export of capital? In any case, does not it greatly alter the general figure when this export has been taking place?

Mr. Jenkins: It does somewhat alter the general figure, though as a result of taxation measures of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary our capital balance


moved into near balance for some period.I have no further measures to propose.

Mr. Higgins: Will the Chancellor confirm that the information he will place in the Library will include the firm dates

External Loans taken by Her Majesty's Government since October, 1964 are as follows:


Lender
Date of Loan
Amount of Loan *
Repayment dates
Amounts repaid*
£m. Amount outstanding at 26th November 1968†


International Monetary Fund
December, 1964.
357
1967
357
—


Swiss National Bank (Parallel Loan)
December, 1964
28
1967
28
—


International Monetary Fund
May, 1965
500
1968–1970
77‡
500‡


Swiss National Bank (Parallel Loan)
May, 1965
14
1968–1970
6
11


International Monetary Fund
March, 1966
44
1969–1971
—
51


U.S. Export-Import Bank, Line of Credit (Military Aircraft Loans)
April, 1966
19
1966–1973
6
16


June, 1966
12
1966–1973
4
10


August, 1966
66
1967–1974
11
66


July, 1967
138§
1968–1976
—
142


Swiss Bank Consortium
October, 1967
37
—
44
—


Bank for International Settlements
November, 1967
104
1968–1969
52
52


Deutsche Bundesbank
April, 1968
21
1972
—
21


International Monetary Fund
June, 1968
583
1971
—
583


Total

1,923

585
1,452


* At the value of sterling current at the time.


† At the present value of£ sterling.


‡ Repayment obligation reduced from£583 million to£577 million as a result of a sterling drawing from the International Monetary Fund by New Zealand;£77 million has been repaid.


§ Total amount of credit drawn at 26th November, 1968.


This table does not cover confidential Central Bank transactions.

Rhodesia (Sanctions)

Mr. Wall: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the seizure by customs officers of Rhodesian stamps.

Mr. Harold Lever: Goods imported from Southern Rhodesia in contravention of the prohibition on their importation are liable to seizure under Section 44 of the Customs and Excise Act, 1952, and Rhodesian stamps have been seized under that provision.

Mr. Wall: Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that the seizure of a single Rhodesian stamp from an amateur collector makes not only his Department but the whole country look ridiculous? What will he do to restore the property of those who have exchanged or bought stamps through a third country?

Mr. Lever: It is never ridiculous to enforce the declared and explicit intention of Parliament, and that is all that is being dole in this case.

Mr. John Fraser: Does my hon. Friend appreciate that hon. Members on this

by which we are committed to pay certain of these debts?

Mr. Jenkins: Yes, Sir. I can confirm that.

Following is the information.

side of the House are much more interested in the detention of coloured Africans than the detention of the Penny Black? In so far as the seizures are necessary to bring about majority rule, the Treasury has the full support of hon. Members on this side of the House.

Mr. Wall: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the present estimated cost to Great Britain of maintaining sanctions against Rhodesia.

Mr. Harold Lever: The cost to the Exchequer, including contingency support for Zambia, was£34.8 million between i.d.i. and 30th September, 1968.

Mr. Wall: Could the hon. Gentleman give the House a more genuine figure, including the loss of trade and invisibles, such as banking and insurance, the purchase of dollar tobacco and so on?

Mr. Lever: I was asked a specific and factual Question, to which I have given the most accurate answer available. I am not in a position to rove into a more speculative field.

Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: Is my hon. Friend aware that many of us on this side of the House regard the price as cheap? Will he and the Government do all they can to see that sanctions are stepped up to the highest degree possible for which they can get international agreement?

Mr. Lever: We enforce the sanctions which Parliament thinks fit to enforce. and do so in accordance with Parliament's intention.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: In the absence of an agreement, which we on this side of the House at least devoutly hope the Government will reach, for how many years are the Government prepared to go on with sanctions, which have signally failed in their object?

Mr. Lever: That is far wide of the original Question.

Mr. Rose: Will my hon. Friend give an estimate of the damage to the British economy which would follow if those countries supporting the United Nations Resolution on sanctions were to break off trading relations with this country?

Mr. Lever: My hon. Friend imposes on me at short notice a difficult task which I cannot undertake.

Overseas Tax Systems (Investment Income)

Mr. Blaker: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will undertake a study of the tax systems of other advanced industrial countries for the purpose of ascertaining which of them have different provisions for investment income and other income.

Mr. Diamond: We are already well informed on this subject.

Mr. Blaker: Will the Government publish the result of their inquiries in the Official Report? Does not he think that the increasing discrimination that Britain has imposed on investment income may be one of the factors explaining the decline in savings ratio?

Mr. Diamond: I do not think that there is any call for publication.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: When undertaking a study of the tax systems of other countries, will my right hon. Friend

endorse President de Gaulle's view that speculation against one's currency is unpatriotic and should be prosecuted? When my right hon. Friend is considering the tax system in the U.S.S.R., will he find out what happens to speculators there?

Mr. Diamond: I hope my hon. Friend will relieve me of responsibility for what happens in the Soviet Union. I gave a fairly full answer last night on the subject of speculation and made it clear that illegal speculation is subject to prosecution.

Money Supply

Mr. Ridley: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the reason for the increase in the money supply at an annual rate of 9.6 per cent. during the second period of 1968.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: A great many factors can be attributed as leading to a change in money supply. In any one quarter some of these factors may reflect purely seasonal or temporary influences, as indeed was the case in the second quarter. In the September quarter, after seasonal adjustment, the increase was no more than ½per cent. Taking the second and third quarters of 1968 together, the money supply was rising at an annual rate of about 6 per cent., after allowing for seasonal adjustment.

Mr. Ridley: Would not the Chancellor agree that the injection of large sums of public money by buying up gilt-edge stocks very often occurs just at the wrong time, as last week, and that the continually increasing money supply is counter-cyclical? Will he look into the serious increases in demand which have resulted from this sort of policy and which were responsible for last week's measures?

Mr. Jenkins: I will consider carefully what the hon. Gentleman has to say on this point, which has some force. The employment of money supply over the past two quarters has been no more than in line with the increase in gross national product.

Mr. Iain Macleod: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us, for information, what definition he is taking of money supply for the purpose of this Answer? Is it cash in circulation plus bank deposits?

Mr. Jenkins: Definitions are always dangerous things to give without the exact words in front of one, but I think that it is cash and notes plus banking deposits, either in the United Kingdom of foreign banks, held by United Kingdom residents.

Treasury (Organisation and Methods)

Mr. Hordern: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will invite a firm of management consultants to examine the structure and methods of Her Majesty's Treasury.

Mr. Diamond: No, Sir. The Treasury's organisation has been considered, and changed, several times in the last few years; for instance, as a result of the Fulton Committee's recommendations on the setting up of the Civil Service Department. I do not think that another examination now would be helpful.

Mr. Hordern: As the Bank of England has appointed a firm of management consultants to examine one part of the Government's financial machine, would it not be appropriate to invite a firm of management consultants to examine the methods and organisation of the Treasury as well?

Mr. Diamond: I have just explained that it has been fully examined by the Fulton Committee very recently. The Bank of England did not have the advantage of that examination.

Public Expenditure

Mr. Gordon Campbell: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is satisfied that public expenditure will be contained within the limits set in the White Paper of January 1968, Command Paper No. 3515, for 1968–69 and 1969–70; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Diamond: I refer the hon. Member to the reply of 15th October I gave to the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter).—[Vol. 770, c. 185–7.]

Mr. Campbell: Since the situation is much worse than it was in January, should not these targets now be reviewed by the Departmental Ministers concerned, regrettable though this necessity may be, if the Government's latest stringent measures are really to be effective and as this

is a time of crisis and not of successful economic expansion, owing to the incompetence of the Government?

Mr. Diamond: I explained only last night how the Government are sticking to their target of public expenditure for the forthcoming year, which represents an increase of 1 per cent. I also explained the difficulties I have when hon. Members opposite, including the hon. Gentleman himself, press for increases in individual items of public expenditure, and I look forward to his support the next time one of those difficulties comes along.

Mr. Molloy: Is my right hon. Friend aware that demands from hon. Members opposite, which are pretty constant, for reductions in public expenditure are alternated with demands for increases in certain services in their constituencies, such as hospitals, roads and social services? Would not he agree that this incredible attitude of theirs only confirms Disraeli's dictum that the Conservative Party is an organised hypocrisy?

Hon. Members: It was Churchill's.

Mr. Higgins: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that, last night, he was concerned with the figures in real terms? What are the figures in money terms, and, in particular, has the public expenditure percentage of gross national product gone up?

Mr. Diamond: I have not the figure in money terms, but I gave the figure last night in real terms because that is what the House is interested in. The increase is 1 per cent. extra over this year, but the increase in gross national product is, as I have said, much greater than that.

Value-Added Tax

Mr. St. John-Stevas: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will introduce a value-added tax and abolish Purchase Tax in his next Budget.

Mr. Diamond: I cannot comment in advance on the contents of my right hon. Friend's next Budget.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Would not an undertaking by the right hon. Gentleman today do something to counteract the deplorable effect on our relations with our European allies caused by the patronising arrogance with which the Chancellor is reported to have behaved in Bonn?

Mr. Diamond: I am unaware of those reports. I can only say that my right hon. Friend is incapable of behaving with arrogance.

Mr. Barnett: As the recent report did not in any substantial way contradict the exhaustive findings of the Richardson Committee, would not my right hon. Friend agree that it would perhaps be better to try to convince Europe that it would be better for them to revert to purchase tax?

Mr. Diamond: That would be an easier task if the countries my hon. Friend has in mind had ever adopted the purchase tax system. It is necessary for all of us, in order to understand the different views taken by different countries, to realise what previous methods of taxation they respectively used.

Central and Local Government Expenditure

Mr. Wingfield Digby: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is now in a position to give, for the current financial year, the percentage of the gross national product taken by central and local government expenditure, including National and Health Insurance contributions and interest on loans to local authorities and public corporations.

Mr. Diamond: No. Sir. An estimate of the gross national product for the twelve months ending March, 1969, will not be published until July next year.

Mr. Digby: Is it not a fact that Government claims on the gross national product are increasing much faster than the latest predictions for the product itself?

Mr. Diamond: No. I have just answered that point. The estimate of increase on any public expenditure next year is 1 per cent. and the estimate for increase in gross national product is much greater than that.

Betting and Gaming Act, 1960 (Reprint)

Mrs. Knight: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what sales are expected of the reprint announced by Her Majesty's Stationery Office on 23rd July, 1968, of the Betting and Gaming Act, 1960; and how far these are estimated to meet the cost of printing.

Mr. Harold Lever: It is expected that the 1,000 copies which have been reprinted will be sold or issued officially over the next few years and that the cost of reprinting will be recovered in full.

Mrs. Knight: That is a feeble Answer. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the whole of the Act, except for part of one paragraph of one Schedule, has been superseded by the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act, 1963, and that there would seem no point in spending money on reprinting it?

Mr. Lever: According to my advice, there remains a demand sufficiently active to absorb this modest edition in a reasonable period and to recoup our costs.

Marriage and Dependants' Allowances

Mr. John Page: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will introduce legislation so that marriage and dependants' allowances are only allowable in respect of persons living in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Harold Lever: I shall consider the hon. Member's suggestion, but I cannot anticipate my right hon. Friend's Budget statement.

Mr. Page: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the loss by fraudulent claims of between£5 million and£7 million a year is intolerable and that quick action is demanded by the public?

Mr. Lever: My right hon. Friend will certainly take note of what the hon. Gentleman has said.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Can you give some protection to hon. Members? Are not these early days for the House to be fobbed off with conventional statements about anticipation of the Budget?

Mr. Speaker: I have no power to make Ministers answer in the way the hon. Gentleman would wish them to answer.

Sir Knox Cunningham: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Do we understand that this is the January Budget that we are talking about?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order.

Mr. John Page: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

Debt (Repayments)

Mr. Higgins: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will specify the amounts of debt Great Britain is firmly

External Loans Taken By Her Majesty'S Government-Repayments Due 26Th November, 1968–31St December, 1971 (AT CURRENT VALUE OF£ STERLING)



By end of 1968
1969
1970
1971
£ million Total to 1971


Portugal

6
5
5
16


United States Line of Credit
26
26
27
27
106


United States Lend-Lease
4
4
4
4
16


Canadian Line of Credit
8
8
8
8
32


United States Economic Co-operation Admininistration
2
5
5
6
18


United States Mutual Security Agency
—
—
—
—
—


Germany-European Payments Union
—
9
9
7
25


International Monetary Fund


May, 1965 drawing
—
333
167
—
500


Parallel Swiss Loan (May, 1965)
—
11
—
—
11


International Monetary Fund


March, 1966 drawing

Between March, 1969 and March, 1971

51


June, 1968 drawing
By June, 1971
583


United States Export-Import Bank, Line of Credit
14
48
32
32
126


Bank for International Settlements
9
43
—
—
52


Deutsche Bundesbank
—
—
—
—
—



TOTAL





1,536


It is not customary to disclose details of short-term financial transactions between Central Banks.

Spending Departments (Delegated Expenditure)

Mr. David Howell: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what instructions he has given in the current year to officials in his Department to delegate greater financial authority over detailed spending decisions to the main spending Departments.

Mr. Diamond: The levels of delegated expenditure are revised from time to time as circumstances warrant.

Mr. Howell: In view of the Fulton Committee recommendations and the setting up of the new Civil Service Department, is there not a need for a complete new look at this whole system of delegated expenditure? Does it make sense to urge new delegated management responsibility in government without major delegation of financial responsibility to Departments? Is not this in need of reform now?

committed to repay at various dates between now and 1971.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: With permission I will circulate details in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Higgins: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us now what the total figure is and what percentage is due to be paid in the next five or ten years?

Mr. Jenkins: The total figure is£1,536 million.

Mr. Diamond: The hon. Gentleman should not assume that there is any fixed view about this, or that the amount of delegation is equal for all Departments, or for all elements within a given Department. Each has to be looked at on its merits and, as the hon. Gentleman, who takes a great interest in these matters, knows, one has to have regard both to the responsibility of the Treasury and the responsibility of the Department and its feeling that it is doing a responsible job by itself.

Mr. Macdonald: Has my right hon. Friend noted the recent Report of the Estimates Committee on the very detailed candle ends control exercised by the Treasury over the Ministry of Overseas Development? Will he look carefully at that?

Mr. Diamond: I have noted the Report and I always pay great attention to the Reports of the Estimates Committee and the Reports of all Committees


of the House, and I am familiar with the complaint about candle ends. I am also aware that if a candle end were only 1 per cent. of the length of a candle of£15,000 million public expenditure, it would be a considerable sum.

Departmental Estimates

Mr. David Howell: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what instructions have been given to Departments to submit their estimates in future on the basis of programmes and functions rather than by standard administrative category.

Mr. Diamond: I am considering whether the presentation to Parliament of information on public expenditure could be improved.

Mr. Howell: In view of the trends in public spending, is it not a matter of prime urgency that Parliament should know much more about the way in which the Government are spending public money? Does the Chief Secretary know that the West German Parliament will be presented next year with estimates broken down both traditionally and on a functional cost basis? Will he look at that system, because there may be something in it?

Mr. Diamond: The answer to the first question is an unqualified "Yes, Sir". The answer to the second is that I hope to go much further than the Government which he has mentioned in enabling Parliament to take a real interest and a real share in determining the shape of public expenditure.

Customs (Cost)

Sir C. Taylor: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the cost of the customs service at airports, shipping ports and railway termini in the United Kingdom for the latest year in which figures are available; and how much was collected in duty during the same period by customs officers.

Mr. Harold Lever: In round figures,£18 million and£2¼thousand million in the year ended 31st March. If the hon. Member's interest is confined to staff engaged on the examination of passengers and their baggage, I would refer him to the Written Answer given to his hon. Friend the Member for Esher (Sir W. Robson Brown) on 14th October.

Sir C. Taylor: I did not understand the figures. I ask for only two but I seemed to get three. Will the hon. Gentleman explain which figure applies to what?

Mr. Lever: I gave the hon. Gentleman two figures,£18 million and£2,250 million, the£18 million being the cost of collection and the£2,250 million being the amount collected. I would have thought that without detailed explanation that might have been obvious.

Balance of Payments

Mr. Sheldon: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has now made of the balance of payments for 1968 and 1969.

Mr. Stratton Mills: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether Her Majesty's Government still estimates that the United Kingdom will achieve a£500 million annual rate of surplus on its balance of payments some time during 1969; and if he will indicate the basis for this estimate.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: The House will know from my statement of Friday and my speech yesterday of the Government's determination to achieve a decisive and early improvement in the balance of payments. I do not intend to publish exact estimates at present.

Mr. Mills: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether he adheres to the earlier forecast of£500 million surplus during the course of 1969? Is he aware that when this figures is given by the Treasury to international bodies, it is frankly treated with disbelief?

Mr. Jenkins: Yesterday, the right hon. Member for Bexley (Mr. Heath), who, I know, always has my interests at heart, warned me against publishing too many forecasts. I have published more than has ever been done before, and I do not in the least regret doing it, but I do not think that it is sensible constantly to publish forecasts. But our target remains exactly as previously.

Mr. Biffen: What is "sizeable" and what is "early"?

Mr. Jenkins: "Sizeable" is large and "early" is at the soonest possible moment.

Incentives

Mr. Sheldon: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what studies in incentives he is now undertaking.

Mr. Heffer: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what studies in personal incentives and taxation he is undertaking.

Mr. Diamond: As I told my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) on 15th October, 1968, I am carefully considering the main studies which have been carried out in this field in recent years.

Mr. Sheldon: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the dragging of feet by the Treasury is in marked contrast with what is going on in the Department of Economic Affairs, which is carrying out a survey into the R.E.P. and as that Department represents£100 million and the taxes of my right hon. Friend's Department represent£10,000 million a year, surely investigation here should have greater priority?

Mr. Diamond: I am not aware of any dragging of any feet in the Treasury.

INDUSTRIAL AND OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH (MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY)

Ql. Dr. John Dunwoody: asked the Prime Minister if he will transfer responsibility for industrial and occupational health from the Department of Employment and Productivity to the Department of Social Services.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): I am not at present convinced that this would be the right decision.

Dr. Dunwoody: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that today we are losing more than 20 million working days a year through industrial diseases and accidents which are largely preventable and that this is a serious burden on our economy? Would it not be easier to solve this problem if there were one Department responsible for all health affairs?

The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend's statement of the facts. These arguments are very finely

balanced. He will recognise that the change for which he is asking appeals to many in industry, including the T.U.C., but that it is important that factory doctors should also be closely identified with the work of the Factory Inspectorate in all aspects of industrial welfare, industrial health and industrial safety.

Dr. Winstanley: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that, in view of the shortage of manpower and woman-power in the Health Service generally, we cannot afford not to make the most economic use of existing manpower, that divisions of this kind result in duplication, and that bringing them all under the same umbrella would be an immense benefit to all?

The Prime Minister: It is precisely because of the shortage of medical manpower that the idea of developing what might become a separate occupation in the Health Service is impracticable at this time. From his professional and other contacts, the hon. Gentleman will know of the new proposals for the "A" Doctor system which I think will be of great value to occupational health in industry.

THE ECONOMY

Mr. Marten: asked the Prime Minister what steps he is taking to coordinate Government action to avert attempts to disrupt the economy during the forthcoming winter.

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friends already work closely together on these matters.

Mr. Marten: I welcome the recent and slight downward trend in the number of wholly unemployed. However, can the Prime Minister confirm that it is his belief that the Chancellor's recent measures will not in fact increase unemployment? If they do, will he not be courting a winter of discontent in some quarters?

The Prime Minister: I have nothing to add to the very full statement made by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the debate yesterday when he dealt with the reversal of


the unemployment trend which the hon. Gentleman has mentioned, and also with the very marked rise over the last few months, especially the last month, of the number of unfilled vacancies, vacant jobs. I thought that my right hon. Friend put the whole matter completely right in its perspective yesterday.

Mr. Philip Noel-Baker: Will the Prime Minister suggest to the hon. Gentleman that he restrain the Leader of the Opposition from undermining confidence by seeking to exploit a grave international crisis for Tory Party ends?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I would not suggest asking the hon. Gentleman to use his influence with the Leader of the Opposition. I thought that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition yesterday greatly increased confidence on this side of the House as a result of the extremely well chosen words he saw fit to adopt. However, from a national point of view, he would do well to study the words of the right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) and his very restrained and patriotic remarks on radio on Sunday.

Mr. Peyton: rose—[Interruption].

Mr. Speaker: Order. I want to hear the hon. Member. Mr. Peyton.

Mr. Peyton: Is not the Prime Minister aware that the attempts of some to subvert the national economy are as nothing to the errors which his Government have committed? Is he not aware that he and his right hon. Friends are alone in thinking that this Government at this moment are free of blame?

The Prime Minister: The Leader of the Opposition must be hard up if he has to turn to his hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) to bail him out.

Mr. Brooks: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that, in view of the stop-go anarchy affecting certain key components firms in the motoring industry, including the Girling Brake Works in my constituency, it is important that this House should have an early opportunity to discuss labour relations in that field and perhaps to have the opportunity to discuss the Donovan Commission Report?

The Prime Minister: I thought that the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) put down this Question because he has been concerned about the disruption arising from strikes and so on and that was in his mind. Certainly so far as this winter is concerned, the estimate must be on the basis of recent experience. It is not the kind of problem we faced in the past. It is wildcat strikes and unofficial strikes. As one who used to live in a village in my hon. Friend's constituency where the factory is situated, I associate myself with what he has said. As for a debate, that Is a matter for the Leader of the House. It is the wildcat and unofficial strikes which cause the trouble.

Mr. Heath: When is a White Paper on the Donovan Report to be published by the Government? Will it contain provisions for freely negotiated contracts?

The Prime Minister: As to the date, I hope it will be available in the next couple of months or so. I do not want to pin myself to an exact date, but this is the next step in dealing with the problem mentioned by my hon. Friend. The Leader of the Opposition should not expect me to anticipate the terms of that White Paper.

Mr. Heffer: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that the financial speculators have done far more harm to the economy of this country than any strike, official or unofficial? Would my right hon. Friend give a pledge to this House that the Government will take the strongest possible measures against such speculators, prosecute them and arrest them if necessary?

The Prime Minister: Where there is evidence of illegality, as the Chief Secretary said last night, they are proceeded against. It is very important that my hon. Friend should realise the distinction between the damage that can be done by world speculators, including those in this country who are free to operate within limits, and the underlying factors which sometimes give them encouragement.
Therefore, it is quite wrong to say that it is all speculators and industrial strikes do not matter. Industrial strikes can create an atmosphere in which a


vicious force of speculation, some of it just as much politically motivated as some strikes, can take effect. But here the right hon. Member for Barnet, speaking for himself, supported in almost the same words the words I used a year ago for which I have been criticised—[An Hon. Member: "He must be wrong."]— I think the right hon. Gentleman knows more about these matters than does the hon. Member for Yeovil—saying that we—I associate myself with this—have all under-estimated the force of world speculation over these last few years.

Mr. Maudling: Since the Prime Minister has been kind enough to refer to me, is it not a fact that the majority of so-called speculators are mainly those who take action presuming the Prime Minister is right in saying that the value of the£ is going to fall?

The Prime Minister: I am getting a little used to the Leader of the Opposition taking my words and putting them in quotes on lines of his own. Having done that now three times in the last month—[Interruption.] Yes I am referring to that. If he will now take the words which I used in the broadcast—[Hon. Members: "Read them out."] I have read them many times in this House —[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Noise does not help at all. The Prime Minister.

The Prime Minister: Hon. Members are capable of reading for themselves, but they have not taken the trouble to do so. The right hon. Gentleman can read, because I know he reads the speeches which are written for him so well. If he will read my words and his words or that and in the speech he made on 2nd November, he will see whether he was accurate or not and I will be ready to accept his apology.

Mr. Maudling: I was referring to what the Prime Minister said yesterday. In effect he warned people that prices would rise, which means that the value of the£ would fall.

The Prime Minister: Yes, I am very glad to have from the right hon. Gentleman, with his reputation in these matters, the first acknowledgment from the Opposition Front Bench that in that broadcast I did warn the country that

prices would rise. This has always been denied by the Leader of the Opposition. I said that inevitably prices would rise because of increased import costs. In fact they have risen less—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

The Prime Minister: I would refer the right hon. Member for Barnet to what I said, not the falsification of it by the Leader of the Opposition. So far as the right hon. Member for Barnet is concerned, this has nothing to do with the power of speculation, as he knows, whether against the franc in relation to the mark or against sterling. I agree with what he had the honesty to say on Sunday.

MINISTERIAL SPEECHES AND STATEMENTS

Mr. Gordon Campbell: asked the Prime Minister what is now the practice of his Administration as regards machinery for consultation concerning public Ministerial speeches and statements in the country.

The Prime Minister: The traditional practice, Sir, under which my right hon. and hon. Friends continue to consult any of their colleagues whose departmental responsibilities make this appropriate.

Mr. Campbell: Does the Prime Minister agree that this system has been very ineffective in recent weeks? Will he ensure that in future Ministers are better informed about the economic situation? Will he in this context and for the good of the country place an absolute ban on the use of maritime metaphors?

The Prime Minister: Her Majesty's Ministers are clearly better informed on the economic situation than were the Opposition speakers we heard yesterday. As to speeches in the country, I have had recent occasion to remind my colleagues that we rely exactly on the same principles and methods as were used by their predecessors.

Mr. Roebuck: Can my right hon. Friend offer any advice—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I also want to hear the hon. Member. Mr. Roebuck.

Mr. Roebuck: Can my right hon. Friend offer any advice to the Leader of the Opposition and the right hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Barber) about the machinery for the distribution of speeches through the Conservative Central Office for the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) to ensure that that right hon. Gentleman's inappropriate views are prevented from causing unnecessary tumult in the population?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. The right hon. Gentleman, who cannot even get some measure of co-ordination, let alone control, among the Opposition leaders, certainly has nothing to say about the position of Ministers who operate the Ministerial speaking rules.

RHODESIA

Mr. St. John-Stevas: asked the Prime Minister whether he will make a further statement on Rhodesia.

Mr. Molloy: asked the Prime Minister what is the latest position concerning the Rhodesian situation.

The Prime Minister: I have nothing to add to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Minister without Portfolio on 18th November.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Can the Prime Minister assure the House that in seeking a settlement with the Smith regime he will abide by diplomatic usages and not resort to diplomatic bullying which, according to The Times, he used in dealing with our German allies?

The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman wants to rely on Press reports of that kind he is entitled to do so. It is not for me to disillusion him on that. The statements in the Press were quite false, so were the statements of the Leader of the Opposition yesterday. It is not the practice, and never has been, for messages between Heads of Government to be published. I very much regret that on this occasion there were leaks in Bonn, inaccurate leaks, when the Foreign Secretary and I saw the German Ambassador, not in the circumstances so picturesquely described

by the Leader of the Opposition yesterday.

Mr. Molloy: Is my right hon. Friend aware that most of us on this side of the House are more concerned with bullying and vulgar behaviour towards the majority party leaders in Rhodesia rather than any attitude which my right hon. Friend might adopt towards Mr. Smith? Has my right hon. Friend's attention been drawn to an article in The Guardian of 14th November which seriously challenges in detail the estimate of the "Fearless" settlement on majority rule being obtained within 15 years and suggests, with considerable evidence, that if this settlement were imposed no agreement could be achieved by the year 2000?

The Prime Minister: I read this article immediately on publication. Its author is an extremely distinguished authority on constitutional matters in Rhodesia. We have subjected some of the assumptions and calculations to a very careful check, and I have to say, with great respect to the author, that we do not accept the conclusions about what the timetable for majority rule would be under the 1961 Constitution, whose operation we set out to safeguard by insisting on the six principles.

Sir J. Rodgers: May I ask the Prime Minister whether he saw the German Ambassador, and would he recognise that—

Mr. Speaker: Order. This Question is about Rhodesia.

Sir J. Rodgers: The Prime Minister answered a question about the German Ambassador. Could he confirm that he saw the German Ambassador—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The fact that the original supplementary question went wide and the Prime Minister went equally wide does not mean that the hon. Gentleman can go as wide.

Sir J. Rodgers: Does the Prime Minister recognise that those who provoke leaks will probably suffer from leaks in the long run?

The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman, in his snide remark, suggests that we were in any way involved in


leaks on the occasion when, as I have already said, I, with two of my right hon. Friends, saw the German Ambassador, he should withdraw it. These remarks were put out officially in Germany by official spokesmen. I deplore this, and I have not known it in four years of communication with nearly 100 Heads of Government.

Mr. Michael Foot: May I return to the question of Rhodesia? In view of the leading part which this matter is bound to play at the forthcoming Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference, would my right hon. Friend consider making a firm declaration before the conference that the Government stand absolutely by the pledge of no independence before majority rule which was voted for by this House and which was in the terms of the pledge given to the last Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference? Would he agree that only such a declaration as that can hold the Commonwealth together?

The Prime Minister: There are three questions there. First, the basis on which we approach the very important forthcoming conference will be that described by my right hon. Friend and myself in he recent debate on Rhodesia. We shall stand by the position endorsed by the large majority of the House on a vote only three or four weeks ago. Secondly, as far as Nibmar is concerned, my right hon. Friend the Minister without Portfolio has confirmed in the House and in repeated meetings with African leaders that the pledge which has been given remains until we can get a sufficiently substantial change of circumstances to justify going back and discussing that matter again. Thirdly, if my hon. Friend really wants to suggest that any Commonwealth country values the Commonwealth link so little that it would be likely to secede from the Commonwealth or involve the break-up of the Commonwealth, this is a very serious suggestion about the Commonwealth link and the value of the Commonwealth partnership.

EDUCATION (MENTALLY HANDICAPPED CHILDREN)

The following Written Question stood upon the Order Paper:

Mr. PETER ARCHER: To ask the Prime Minister whether he will now make a statement about the future Departmental responsibility for the education of mentally handicapped children.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will now answer Written Question No. 89.
After careful consideration of the views expressed by the bodies consulted, the Government have decided to accept in principle that responsibility for the education of mentally handicapped children in England and Wales should be transferred from the Health to the Education Service. No change is required in Scotland, where education authorities are already responsible for the education of mentally handicapped children.
The necessary legislation will be prepared to give effect to the change in England and Wales, and the date on which this can take place will be settled as soon as possible.
Before the facilities offered by junior training centres can fully become part of the educational system, many matters, including those affecting the future pattern of staffing and the training and status of staff, will have to be worked out in consultation with the appropriate bodies. This is bound to take some time, but I should like to make it clear that the conditions of service and salaries of these staff will not be adversely affected by the change, and that for the present training courses will continue to be provided under the auspices of the Training Council for Teachers of the Mentally Handicapped.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Peter Archer.

Hon. Members: Where is he?

Mr. Speaker: This is the second time that the Chair has been placed in difficulty. Normally, I do not call hon. Members to ask supplementary questions unless the hon. Member who asks the Question puts a supplementary question. The hon. Gentleman who tabled the Written Question should have been here.

Sir E. Boyle: In view of the very great importance of the Prime Minister's announcement to the education system, would he say what consultations there have been with local authorities on this matter? Secondly, in view of this decision, which, in principle, we welcome, could he say whether there is now a prospect of a thorough inquiry being held into the whole range of education for handicapped children?

The Prime Minister: Before I answer the supplementary question by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hands-worth (Sir E. Boyle), perhaps I would be in order in saying that I have taken the unusual course of asking for your permission, Mr. Speaker, to answer the Written Question because this has been the subject of many Questions at Question Time in past weeks. In the debate on the Fulton Report last week, I undertook to make a statement to the House at the earliest opportunity.

Mr. Speaker: I am not criticising the right hon. Gentleman. I am speaking only about my own procedural difficulty in that I usually do not take supplementary questions unless the Member who tabled the Question puts one.

The Prime Minister: I recognise that, Mr. Speaker. I received a message just as I came into the Chamber that my hon. Friend the Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. Archer), who intended to be here, has been delayed on his way to the House for reasons which I do not know. It is only fair that that should be said.
The right hon. Member for Handsworth has been very much concerned in this problem. There have been very full consultations, in the light of the Seebohm Report, and indeed earlier, with the local authority associations and the health organisations. As I said last week, on balance, a majority of those consulted favoured this transfer, although the arguments were very finely balanced. We should now get on with the legislation, which there will be an opportunity to debate, and with the transfer, and consider whether any inquiries are needed. For our part, we would prefer to get on with the job rather than hold further inquiries.

Mr. Moonman: My right hon. Friend should not be left in any doubt about this good news, which will give immense satisfaction to those on this side of the House and throughout the country who have been pressing for this transfer. Would he facilitate this important transfer by encouraging concentration on three critical areas of this problem which will not necessarily be solved by the transfer: first, adequate staffing; secondly, adequate accommodation; thirdly, proper and effective training facilities throughout the country?

The Prime Minister: I referred to this in my statement, particularly staffing and the training and status of the staff. Accommodation is still limited, although we have increased the facilities available during the past three or four weeks and, indeed, over a longer period. Those of us who have visited these places in and near our constituencies know the tremendous job which is done and the great need for expansion of places within the very limited resources available.

Sir D. Renton: When does the right hon. Gentleman expect the legislation to be introduced? Meanwhile, would he say whether the project which the National Society for Mentally Handicapped Children has, in co-operation with Government Departments, for establishing a teacher-training college in the Birmingham area can go ahead, perhaps even in anticipation of the coming into effect of the legislation?

The Prime Minister: We intend to go ahead with legislation at the soonest possible moment. The House will, I know, wish to give it a speedy passage for the reasons mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, amongst others. The question of a training establishment is one which he might like to put down to my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Alfred Morris: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his announcement will be unequivocally welcomed in many quarters of the House? Is he further aware that many of us have pressed for this transfer over many years? May we be assured that there will be the closest consultation with all the voluntary associations concerned on the implications in the immediate future?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. There have already been consultations, and now that the decision has been taken there will have to be definitive consultations by the Department of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science. I am glad that this transfer is unequivocally welcomed by those who pressed for it. This decision might have taken place much earlier but for the fact that for a period expert opinion in this sphere was evenly divided. It was not such a clear-cut case as some of my hon. Friends have suggested, but I am satisfied now that the right decision has been taken.

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: Will the Prime Minister help the House by saying to which of his right hon. Friends we should put questions on teacher training colleges, either now or after the introduction of the Bill?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir; my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science.

Mr. David Steel: Is the Prime Minister aware that his comment, in passing, that there is no problem in Scotland will be regarded by those of us who have had dealings with this problem as rather over-optimistic, and that there are still difficulties between those children who are regarded as coming within the care of the health authorities at local level and those who come within the care of the education authorities? What steps will be taken to ensure that they come under the care of one authority so that there is no sub-division between those who are able to benefit from education and those who are considered unable to do so?

The Prime Minister: If I had said that there was no problem in Scotland I would have been open to the rebuke which the hon. Gentleman set out to embody in his supplementary question. I did not say there was no problem; I said that no change is required in Scotland in terms of administrative responsibilities, where in any case one Minister is responsible for both sub-departments.
If there are problems of the kind mentioned by the hon. Gentleman on some departmental boundaries, he should address this question to my right hon. Friend. Of course, there are problems

there, as in England and Wales, apart from that responsibility, because of sheer lack of resources to tackle what is still an enormous job.

Mr. Molloy: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that those of us who will be involved in this matter know that voluntary associations will welcome his announcement? Would he not consider that, during the preparatory stages of legislation, the voluntary organisations might be provided with a venue where they can submit their proposals on an issue about which they know so much and with which they have been so closely identified?

The Prime Minister: I am aware that a number of hon. Members have closely identified themselves with this problem, not only in the House but in the voluntary work which has been going on outside.
The answer to the second part of my hon. Friend's question is covered by what I said earlier. Now that the decision has been made, the Department of my right hon. Friend will want to get into urgent consultation with the voluntary organisations for the reasons stated by my hon. Friend.

Mr. Doughty: Is the Prime Minister aware that this legislation will be welcomed, provided that it results in better education for handicapped children and is not swamped by the interests of those concerned with educating the greater number? Is he also aware that the phrase "mentally handicapped" is difficult of definition? There are many children who are not mentally deficient, but who are backward and retarded. Will they be included in the legislation?

The Prime Minister: They will be included in the responsibilities of my right hon. Friend. The difficulty of defining the boundary is one reason why it is right that they should all be the responsibility of my right hon. Friend who is concerned with education generally. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to draw attention to this. It is also right to draw attention to the serious problem of the education, and particularly the training in handicrafts and productive work, of those who are over school-leaving age. Many of us have seen the magnificent work which has been done in that connection, and it is important that that work should


be co-ordinated with the work to which I have referred today.

Dame Joan Vickers: In view of the extra knowledge we have of handicapped children, will the Prime Minister cause a survey to be made to find out how many handicapped children go to normal schools rather than to specialised schools which put them in a special category for the rest of their lives?

The Prime Minister: This will be a question for my right hon. Friend. He will want, as far as possible, to assimilate them into the existing educational system. There are very many where this will literally not be possible, particularly those who so far have been outside his jurisdiction, without detriment to the handicapped children themselves and perhaps to the schools to which they might be sent.

Mr. Costain: Does the Prime Minister appreciate that many hon. Members have problems with constituents whose children are mentally retarded? Will he say how this change of policy will affect those who reach maturity, since the problem is no less when such people pass the school-leaving age?

The Prime Minister: As I have just said, this is a separate problem, and a very important one with which many of us have been concerned. If the hon. Gentleman would put down a question on that subject, I will seek to answer it in detail. It is an important question,

but a separate one from the subject with which I have been dealing.

Sir C. Osborne: On a point of order. May I seek your advice, Mr. Speaker, for the protection of back benchers? Would you consider in future whether you should give your permission to a Minister to answer a Private Notice Question unless the hon. Member asking the question is present, since this could reflect on the hon. Member in his own constituency; because the fact that he was not here to deal with the Question he himself put down may reflect on the hon. Member in his constituency.

Mr. Speaker: The problem is not so difficult as the hon. Gentleman suggests. It is up to a Minister, if he has chosen to do so, either to make a statement or to make that statement in answer to a Written Question. I have no power to interfere with that. All I called attention to was the difficulty in which Mr. Speaker is placed if the hon. Gentleman whose question has been answered is not there to start the ball rolling.

Sir Knox Cunningham: On a point of order. May I ask your advice, Mr. Speaker? When a Private Notice Question is tabled it is notified on the board. Would it not help the House, when a Written Question is being answered orally, for it also to be notified?

Mr. Speaker: That would be a convenient practice. It is not, however, a matter for the Chair.

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. Sydney Irving in the Chair]

Clause 1

Voting Age

3.48 p.m.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 8, leave out "eighteen" and insert "twenty".
The Amendment is supported by a number of hon. Members on the other side of the House who have added their names which for technical reasons are not printed on the Notice Paper. In short, it has the support of most of those hon. Members who sat on Mr. Speaker's Conference, together with a number of other hon. Members who did not take part in the conference.
I suggest to the Committee that it should pay great attention to the recommendations of Mr. Speaker's Conference for two reasons. One is that it is an important constitutional body, an important part of our Parliamentary set-up whose purpose is to consider changes in our electoral system in a non-party atmosphere. For that reason it has on it a large number of hon. Members from all parties, and, therefore, any decision which is arrived at by that body after due and full consideration should be sympathetically considered and accepted by the House unless the Government bring overwhelming reasons why the conference was mistaken. They have not done so in this case. Moreover, I suggest that special importance should be attached to the recommendations of Mr. Speaker's Conference when its decisions are unanimous, or nearly unanimous, as they were in this case. Greater weight should be given to the conclusions of such a conference when its members devote a long time and much thought to the consideration of the problem put to them. It is probably fair to say that they gave more attention to the problem than could possibly be devoted to it by any member of the Government.
The recommendation of Mr. Speaker's Conference was arrived at after a full

review and consideration of the Report of the Latey Committee. The conference accepted the view of that Committee that the age of majority for civic and private purposes should not necessarily be the same. It is strange that that view was not accepted by the Government, who based their case on the recommendations of the Latey Committee but deliberately ignored that most relevant paragraph of its Report.

Mr. George Wallace: I was a member of Mr. Speaker's Conference. Is it not a fact that we found some difficulty in getting a unanimous view on the age reduction? In the end, 20 was found to be the age to which members of the conference could agree, with one possible exception. I do not think that it goes any further than that.

Mr. Strauss: I do not think that my hon. Friend's comments are really relevant to my point. When any Committee considers a problem, its members see if it is possible to have a consensus of opinion and get general agreement on it. That is normal procedure, and it happened in this case.
The views of Mr. Speaker's Conference were based on the considerable investigations by its members, who studied all the sources relevant to the matter before them. That review was a very wide one. While the proceedings of the conference cannot be reported, I think I am entitled to say that many of its members came to it with a strong bias in favour of reducing the age to 18. As a result of their inquiries, however, they concluded that 18 was too young and that 20 was a more appropriate age.

Mr. Michael English: Is it not a fact that the only reason why the proceedings of Mr. Speaker's Conference cannot be reported is that the conference itself so decided?

Mr. Strauss: Again, that has nothing to do with the case that I am trying to put. There is no report of the proceedings of Mr. Speaker's Conference because its proceedings have not been published in the past, and we decided not to change that practice. Perhaps we were wrong.

Mr. William Hamling: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that this places us in a most


embarrassing position? He is advancing reasons from Mr. Speaker's Conference, yet we are not in possession of a report of its proceedings.

Mr. Strauss: My hon. Friend is quite right. That arises out of the situation. As a result, those who took a certain view and supported the conclusion of the conference can only put forward to the Committee their personal view of the grounds on which that conclusion was reached.
It is suggested by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary that it would be anomalous if the Government accepted the recommendations of the Latey Committee on the age of majority, as they intend, and the age for voting were to be different. I do not see that that would be unreasonable or improper. Mr. Speaker's Conference and the Latey Committee were asked to consider two entirely different aspects of the age of majority, and I cannot see any reason why Parliament should not accept the recommendations of both bodies. Does it matter if there were an anomaly here, provided that there are good reasons and sound sense to support it? But, I do not think that there is any anomaly.
Another argument advanced is that it would be unjust to have different ages of majority for the two purposes. I do not think that there is much substance in that. Just because, in future, a young man will be able to enter into a binding hire-purchase contract or marry without parental consent at the age of 18, surely he will not suffer from any sense of injustice if he is told that Parliament has decided that the voting age, which is entirely different, should be 20. The argument about injustice is not a strong one.
I am sure that all hon. Members will agree that the important issue is the age of mental maturity reached by young people which should entitle them, in the interests of our electoral system, to have a vote. We all agree that 15 or 16 would be too young and that 25 would be too old. Therefore, we have to consider the right age from the point of view of mental maturity.

Mr. Hamling: Six.

Mr. Strauss: At what age can we expect young people to be able to form

serious judgments about public affairs? That not only depends on a person's age and education, but on his experience in the workaday world.
We had little evidence about maturity, and none at all about an earlier age of maturity compared with that of days gone by. If there was any evidence that people matured mentally at a younger age today, one would have expected it to come from teachers and other educational sources. We had no such evidence. We had to fall back on personal judgments and, accordingly, our decision must be an arbitrary one. There are no hard facts upon which that decision can be made.
When it comes to one's own judgment, one can only depend on personal experience and advice from those best qualified to know. Having discussions with people associated with student groups and clubs, teachers in senior schools, universities and a large number of other bodies, we came to our decision. It so happens that a number of members of Mr. Speaker's Conference are closely associated personally with bodies concerned with adolescents.
It has been argued that, although the view may be that young people at 18 are not sufficiently mature mentally to judge reasonably about political affairs and differentiate between the records and policies of different parties, the same can be said of a large number of adults. No one denies that. However, it is a very bad reason for adding three million new voters to the register. I hope, too, that the Committee will appreciate that that is an average of 4,800 in every constituency. That cannot he right if we believe that most of them have not reached the age at which they can be expected to make an informed and balanced judgment of the claims of the various parties.
I have had a large amount of correspondence from people all over the country confirming that view. I want to quote a sentence from a letter which I received from a person who is not a constituent of mine and who writes:
I was recently reading your speech in Hansard on the Government's considered lowering of the voting age, and I consider that this will be absolutely disastrous. When I was 18, I was easily led by communist, fascist, anarchist and other such ideas"—

Mr. Hamling: Some still are.

Mr. Strauss: The letter goes on:
'Now, however, I consider myself capable of consid.sing politics seriously.
That is typical of the view of large numbers, if not the majority, of young people in Britain.
As I said in a previous debate, we received convincing and overwhelming evidence that most young people between the ages of 18 and 21 did not want a reduction in the voting age. It is not that these people, when asked if they wanted the voting age reduced to 18, were indifferent and said, "We really do not mind." They were definitely opposed to the idea and thought it wrong that the voting age should be reduced to 18.
4.0 p.m.
At annual meetings of the Hansard Society, 2,600 youngsters of about 18–sixth formers in London and its outskirts—were asked each year, "Do you think the voting age should be reduced to 18?" and each year their overwhelming response was "No." The 18–21 Club, in the Midlands, polled 3,000 of its members and got a two-to-one response of "No." A similar poll was carried out among more than 1,350 readers of the Catholic Herald, and they replied in like fashion.

Mr. Eric Lubbock: If the right hon. Gentleman believes that a whole section of the community should be deprived of the vote because two-thirds of that section does not want to exercise it, what is his view of the local government election figures when only about one-third of the population bothers to turn out? Is his argument that they should all be deprived of the vote for that reason?

Mr. Strauss: Not at all. We are talking about the Parliamentary vote. If one asked groups of 15-year-olds if they wanted the vote one might get the same two-to-one response against having it. That is no reason why the one-third who said, "Yes" should have the vote at 15.
There is no public demand by young people for a reduction of the voting age to 18 and there is strong evidence to show that they would rather not have this reduction. Such demand as exists

comes from very small groups, such as the Young Liberals and Young Communists. Their views must be respected, but there is no demand of any significance for this change.

Mr. Hector Hughes: My right hon. Friend has given statements from academics—teachers and the like—to support his argument. Has he any evidence to show the views of parents, and are not those views important?

Mr. Strauss: The views of parents were not sought. My hon. and learned Friend will agree that the views of young people in this matter are the important ones.
People who do not want to vote at elections need not vote. That is true, and I am sure that a large number of youngsters would not vote even if the voting age were reduced to 18. The question, however, is not only whether they want to vote, they dislike coming within the voting age range, because of the pressure that would be put on them through national campaigns, families and all the other means that are used at election time to induce people to vote. They want to avoid those pressures. [Interruption.] I do not know why some of my hon. Friends object to my reporting these facts to the House. I am quoting what was reported to us as the result of inquiries made among a large number of students and other youngsters.

Mr. John Lee: Is my right hon. Friend seriously suggesting that the only way to protect people from the pressures that are brought at election time, despite their wish to participate in politics, is to disfranchise them?

Mr. Strauss: This is not a question of disfranchisement. I am reporting what, as far as one can judge, is the considered view of the great majority of young people.

Mr. English: Would my right hon. Friend accept that a random survey of public opinion is not the same as a selective survey of the opinion of particular groups? He is entitled to say that the members of those groups hold the opinion which he is stating, but he is not entitled to express the opinion of the young people of the country as a whole.

Mr. Strauss: I am reporting the views of 18 to 21-year-olds whose opinions were


sought as they were gathered in groups. It was reasonable to expect that they would express a representative view on a political issue of this sort. Hon. Members may say that it is unfortunate that they should hold that view. If an opinion poll were conducted throughout the country the general opinion might be different, some hon. Members may claim, but there is no reason to suggest that it would be. Indeed, based on the evidence put before us, I believe that such a general poll would reveal a similar opinion.
I hope that it is generally agreed that the experience and knowledge of the world which people should possess before they vote should be related to the time during which they have been out in the world and working; in other words, the gap between the time of leaving school and voting. It would be unfortunate if the vote were given to young people only shortly after they left school. when they had very little experience of wordly affairs.
In the minority report of the Latey Committee evidence was given from the well-known sociologist Mr. Musgrove. In his book, "Youth and the Social Order" he wrote that the raising of the school-leaving age
…will be a decisively regressive step in holding youth back from the assumption of adult or near-adult responsibilities.
An increasingly large number of youngsters are now remaining at school after their 16th birthday. We hope that, within a few years—despite the postponement of the raising of the school-leaving age—many more will stay on beyond 16 to 17. I suggest that one or even two years' gap between the time when youngsters leave school and vote is insufficient and that it would be wiser to make the gap wider.
The question then arises whether, if the age of 18 is too young—and many of us believe that it would be—there should be any reduction in the voting age at all, and, if so, whether 20 would be the right age. I remind hon. Members that if we reduced the age from 21 to 20 we would not be reducing it not by one year but by one year and five months. Under the old registration system nobody could vote until five months after attaining the age of 21. We are proposing, therefore, a reduction of 17 months. We

felt that the age of 20 was reasonable, first, because with the acceptance of the Latey Report, the symbolic significance of the age of 21 disappears—

Mr. John Mendelson: My right hon. Friend uses the word "We". To whom is he referring?

Mr. Strauss: I am referring to the many people who agree with me—

Mr. Mendelson: Ah.

Mr. Strauss: —including the majority of Mr. Speaker's Conference.

Mr. Mendelson: Mr. Mendelson rose—

Mr. Strauss: I cannot continually give way. Although my hon. Friend and two others voted in the opposite direction at Mr. Speaker's Conference, my view is accepted by many others.

Mr. Mendelson: My right hon. Friend is consistently misrepresenting the position which arose at Mr. Speaker's Conference. [Hon. Members: "Rubbish."] I am challenging him because he is consistently misrepresenting it. Seven different views were expressed at the conference, but in the end a number of my hon. Friends agreed to the age of 20 only because it was argued that if a reduction to 20 were not made, the Tories might not agree. However, their real view was to go much further, and my right hon. Friend is well aware of that. He should not misrepresent what occurred at Mr. Speaker's Conference.

Mr. Strauss: I rely on the decisions of the majority of my hon. Friends on Mr. Speaker's Conference who support my view. What my hon. Friend has said is a distortion of what happened.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. James Callaghan): This is an important matter. I rely upon my right hon. Friend to report faithfully to us, as I know he will, the basis of the decision of Mr. Speaker's Conference. But I should like to put a straight question to him. He is asking us, in his powerful case, on the authority of Mr. Speaker's Conference, for reasons undisclosed, to accept the age of 20, because that was the recommendation. It is a powerful reason, but if we are to accept that authority I must put this question to him.
Did Mr. Speaker's Conference arrive at the age of 20 because it believed that it was the right age, or was it a compromise between differing points of view? If the first, I should like to hear why 20 is thought to be so superior to 21. If it was a compromise, frankly the question of any authority of Mr. Speaker's Conference departs as an argument, because it was a bargain. Therefore, the Committee will reach its own conclusion. I am asking a question and drawing deductions. I should be grateful if my right hat. Friend will tell us what the position was. I know that he will put the picture fairly.

Mr. Strauss: Twenty was considered to be the appropriate age at Mr. Speaker's Conference, at which—

Mr. Mendelson: No

Mr. Strauss: As I said earlier, many people came to the conference biased in favour of 18. We had a great deal of discussion and argument in the course of which people's ideas moved, particularly in the light of information that they obtained. At the end of the day there was general agreement, first, that there should be a reduction in the voting age and, secondly, that the appropriate reduction should be one year to the age of 20.

Mr. Mendelson: No.

Mr. English: On a point of order. It is clear that there is a dispute about the proceedings of Mr. Speaker's Conference. Would I be in order at some point in moving that the Committee order that those proceedings be published?

Mr. Charles Pannell: Further to that point of order. I suggest that the Committee should not be led astray. The House took its decision on Second Reading on the basis that Mr. Speaker's Conference could not be reported. There is a great deal of material on the subject. I do not want to enter into argument, because I hope to make a speech later. We ought not to have procedural references at present about ordering things to be printed, because—

The Chairman (Mr. Sydney Irving): Order. Perhaps the right hon. Member will allow me to deal with the particular point. The Motion suggested by the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr.

English) cannot be moved without notice, so I am unable to accept it.

Mr. English: On a point of order.

The Chairman: I have disposed of the point of order.

Mr. English: Further to that point of order.

The Chairman: I cannot take a further point on a point of order which has been disposed of.

Mr. English: With respect, you said that it could not be moved without notice. If I give notice today, could it be moved tomorrow?

The Chairman: It cannot be accepted in Committee, so it is out of order. Mr. Strauss—[interruption.]

Mr. Mendelson: Mr. Mendelson rose—

The Chairman: Order. I would remind the Committee that there are many hon. Members wishing to speak in the debate. I hope that hon. Members who dissent from what is being said by the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) will endeavour to wait until they catch my eye and make their contribution in that way.

Mr. Mendelson: With respect, this time on a point of order. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary asked a specific question of a member of Mr. Speaker's Conference. He has given a reply which I regard as the opposite of the truth. It is the entitlement of the Committee that another Member be heard—[Hon. Members: "Withdraw."] It is untrue—[Hon. Members: "Withdraw."]

The Chairman: Order. I am sure that the hon. Member did not intend to reflect on the right hon. Member's integrity.

Mr. Mendelson: No.

The Chairman: These are matters for argument in debate, not for the Chair.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

The Chairman: Order. I understand that the right hon. Member is giving way to the hon. Member for Orpington.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. Lubbock: I am sorry to intervene after all these points of order, but it is


important that we should get the matter straight. Some of us voted for the age of 20 purely on the ground that that was the best we could get. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will emphasise that, so that the Home Secretary is not misled.

Mr. Strauss: I accept that point absolutely, but I remind the hon. Gentleman that voting against 18 was 21 to three.

Mr. Mendelson: Mr. Mendelson rose—

Mr. Strauss: I have given way twice already—

Mr. Mendelson: Mr. Mendelson rose—

The Chairman: Order. The right hon. Gentleman is not giving way. I hope that the hon. Member will allow the debate to go ahead.

Mr. Strauss: It would be unfair to the Committee if I lengthened my speech by the long period which would be necessary to deal with all these interruptions. I have already sat down about 10 times. It would be unreasonable for me to give way again. I had hoped to make my speech in about 10 minutes.
The conclusions of Mr. Speaker's Conference are expressed solely in figures of voting. That inevitably happens. But those who took part are entitled to express the conclusions at which they arrived and to indicate that other Members came to the same conclusions. That is what I was doing, and I was giving the reasons why it was thought that the age of 20 was reasonable. I and others thought that 18 was too young and would be bad for our political system and our parliamentary democracy.
One reason why we agreed on 20 was because the age of 21 as a magical figure had disappeared. We thought that there was a case for some reduction in the age, partly because of the Latey Committee Report's recommendation that the age of majority in other matters was being reduced substantially. But our decision was largely based—I have admitted this the whole time—not on concrete evidence that 20 is the correct age, but from the opinions of a large range of people intimately connected with young people.
There is, in fact, a little hard evidence —certainly not conclusive—that the age

of 20 is a certain watershed for young people in reaching maturity. There is a sharp drop at the age of 20 and there is no drop at the age of 18 in the number of young people found guilty of indictable offences. That may be some evidence acceptable to the Committee.
We also had in mind the experience of other countries. There is no reason why we should be bound by the experience of other countries or why we should not take our own line. However, we cannot ignore the fact that in every parliamentary democracy in the world, with five exceptions, the voting age is 21. There are four exceptions where the voting age is lower, but only to the extent of one year, namely 20. That is one reason why we accepted the age of 20.
Four of the exceptions are Switzerland, Australia, Japan and Sweden. In one of the most progressive and liberal countries, Denmark, the voting age is 23. For that reason, among others, we thought that we would be justified in recommending a reduction in the age to 20, and I hope that the Committee will support that recommendation.
The last matter I want to raise is that the Whips will be put on when we come to decide this matter of major constitutional importance. This is not only an issue of constitutional importance, but one on which Mr. Speaker's Conference has come to a near unanimous decision. It is wholly wrong and a constitutional outrage in these conditions, not that the Government should recommend what they like to this Committee—they are entitled to do that—but that they should compel support on this side by the compulsion of the threat of the Whip, particularly as large numbers of hon. Members on this side of the House take a different view from that of the Government.
This decision to put on the Whips is indefensible. It is one which, on constitutional grounds, I cannot accept, and it is, I know, much resented by my Friends —those who accept 18 as the voting age as well as those who accept 20–that they should have to vote under the threat of the Whip. I hope that my hon. Friends who take the same view as I on this constitutional aspect of the matter will carry their protests into action when the Division is called.

Sir David Renton: I am glad to support the Amendment which has been moved by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss), to which, with some of my hon. Friends who were also members of Mr. Speaker's Conference, I added my name last week. I warmly endorse what he has said. It is a very great pity that his integrity was challenged as to what transpired at Mr. Speaker's Conference, and for the sake of helping to put the record straight I shall have more to say about that in a moment.
The right hon. Gentleman said, and I am sure that many hon. Members on both sides agree with him, that it was regrettable that the Whips should be on today. I point out that they are on only on the Government side: there will be a free vote on this side. I suggest that in exercising our discretion, using our judgment and doing our duty as Members of this House there are two main matters we should bear in mind on this issue. The first is that we shall be taking an irrevocable step today, and the second is that in taking that step we should make sure that it is one that will strengthen our Parliamentary democracy, at a time when it needs strengthening, rather than weaken it.
The right hon. Gentleman and I were members of Mr. Speaker's Conference throughout the whole of the three years. Others came and went, but he and I continued throughout it. So did my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton), my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) and the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock). There may have been other hon. Members who sat throughout. It was the first Speaker's Conference for nearly a quarter of a century, and those who were chosen to sit on it represented, I think, all shades of opinion here. But the interesting and to my mind the impressive thing about it was that we were largely unencumbered by party attitudes either in discussion or in voting.
Before we discussed the voting age we had submitted to us a mass of information—statistical and otherwise—representations and official advice. We also had the benefit of our own inquiries and our own experience: I am in the rather strange position today of having a

daughter aged 20 and another aged 18. In view of the attitude adopted by the Government it is also relevant to point out that we did not start our discussions on the voting age until after publication of the Latey Committee's Report—and I will have more to say about that Report later.
With all that before us, and after long, thoughtful and, I believe, constructive discussion, what did we do? The first thing we did was to consider whether the voting age should be lowered to 18. Paragraph 1 of Cmnd. 3550 records that we rejected by 22 votes to 3 the Motion that the minimum age should be 18 years. But we could not just leave the matter there. There was another Motion before the conference that the voting age should be 20. We reached the conclusion, by 24 votes to 1–very nearly unanimous—that it should be 20.
I do not think that any of us who were on Mr. Speaker's Conference would claim that Parliament should be utterly bound by our recommendation, but what we do say, and we say it especially bearing in mind the voting figures of 24 to 1, is that those who wish to reject that recommendation should have strong reasons for doing so. The right hon. Member for Vauxhall, who is a man who uses, perhaps, stronger language than I do, spoke of overwhelming reasons, and I would not quarrel with him there. Those who wish to put forward reasons for rejecting the recommendation should state those reasons fully and clearly so that they may be discussed and considered before this Committee takes a decision tonight.
As far as I know, the only reason, and if there are other reasons it is certainly the principal reason, for the Government not accepting our almost unanimous recommendation was that as they had accepted the Latey Committee's recommendation that the age of majority should be 18 the voting age should also be 18. That reason is not strong enough, and I shall analyse it. It is not even logical. It only has the merit of tidiness.
The Latey Committee did not obtain evidence on or seek representations about the voting age. Indeed, in paragraph 25 of its Report it states:
And on the subject of voting we have carefully refused to express a view.


But it concludes that paragraph with the words—and these words are surely relevant to this debate
We do not accept that the civic and the private field either would or should necessarily go together; on the contrary, it could be argued that only an unnaturally high age of majority has kept the two in line as long as it has.
It follows from that statement by the Latey Committee that it envisaged the possibility that while the age of majority in relation to private rights might be 18, the voting age might either remain at 21, or perhaps be reduced to 20, or even to 19, but that it should not necessarily be brought down to 18.
The Latey Committee recommended several minor differentials for various capacities. I stress that they were minor differentials and I do not set great store by them but, for what they are worth, the Latey Committee said that 16 should be the age of consent to medical or dental treatment and 18 for blood donating—and how it reached that conclusion I have no idea at all. Then there is the more obvious view that 16 should be the minimum age of consent to marriage or intercourse, but that parents' consent is required at 18. In other words the Committee took the view, and it is a view that I am sure we should accept, that people mature at different ages for different purposes.
4.30 p.m.
All the Latey Committee's recommendations relate to personal and private rights and obligations, not to public ones such as jury service, the age at which one can become an M.P. or serve on a local council, or the age at which one can vote in Parliamentary or local government elections. In considering the voting age we are dealing with something bigger than private rights and obligations, we are dealing with a situation where individuals have to raise their thoughts and their decisions above those matters which come within the limited horizon of their own personal affairs.
Voting at elections, especially Parliamentary elections, is not merely a right. It imposes upon the individual elector a serious duty to use his own judgment to decide what is best for his family, his country and himself. Many people over 21 feel conscientiously that they have not

the ability to decide how to vote and that is perhaps one reason why as many as 20 per cent. of the electorate do not vote at elections at all.
There is no doubt that with every year that passes the issues facing the electors become more complex, and government becomes more remote. No doubt there are other steps we could take to put that right. On the other hand, fortunately, that tendency towards complexity and remoteness is to some extent offset by the general raising of the standard of education. But the raising of standards has not been enough nor is it likely to be for a good many years, bearing in mind the stresses in our educational system, to save many voters from bewilderment. The younger they are, the more bewildered they will be, because they have not had the experience and time to sort out the issues which arise.
The realities of the present Parliamentary situation are such that our decision is not whether the voting age should be lowered, but whether it should be lowered to 18 or to 20. In coming to that decision, as I suggested at the outset, there are two main considerations and I should like to explore them more fully. The first is that, whatever we do, it will be irrevocable in the sense that the voting age will never again be raised above whatever level we decide upon today.
We therefore need to be quite certain that what we are doing is right, that the present electorate wants us to do it, and that those upon whom we are placing the responsibility are ready to bear it and wish to do so. Those are the factors we must bear in mind. Although I do not feel strongly about the need for any change, on balance, I think that it would be an advantage if those who have ceased to be teenagers should assume responsibility and should have the right to vote. I am quite sure that most people aged 18 and 19 do not want that responsibility; their elders do not want them to have it and there are serious doubts as to whether enough of them would fully realise what they were voting about.
That brings me to the second main consideration which should influence our judgment about this. Recently, the whole Parliamentary system has been thrown into question. The Press, television and the public are constantly complaining that


we are not as able or as honest or as industrious as they would like us to be. They also complain that the results we achieve are not good enough. Much of that criticism is unfounded. I reckon that the vast majority of Members have every right to be called honourable, and are worthy of the trust placed in them. We would be very rash indeed to ignore that criticism, however. It should surely make us want to see our Parliamentary system strengthened, not weakened.
We would, therefore, be most unwise to reduce the voting age to a level which did not seem likely to strengthen the Parliamentary system. At this stage we need voters who are fit to elect the sort of politicians needed to grapple with the difficult problems of our age. This can only he a matter of judgment, it has to be an arbitrary decision up to a point, just as the original age of 21 was arbitrary. Reducing the voting age to 20 could strengthen the system, more especially, strangely enough, if the Latey Committee proposals are accepted and brought into force, because then young people would have had two years' responsibility, looking after their own affairs and will then be better qualified to vote in Parliamentary elections.
To reduce the voting age to 18 would, in my cpinion, weaken the system in the long term. I am quite sure that to reduce it now irrevocably to 18 would seriously weaken our democracy, our Parliamentary system, and I will vote against it, subject to what may be said in the debate, although I am not likely to be convinced to the contrary. I do, however, think that there are advantages in reducing the age now to 20.

[Mr. Harry Gourlay in the Chair]

Mr. Mendelson: The Committee has just listened to a characteristically reactionary speech from a right hon. and learned Gentleman who is not only suspicious of young voters, but who is suspicious of all voters. That is the kind of philosophy that has inspired the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) throughout these debates, and I am not surprised to hear him repeating it today. He had the temerity to talk about bewildering young voters. He and his colleagues do not have a bad record over the years in attempt-

ing to bewilder older voters. The right hon. and learned Gentleman, who was apparently responsible with his party colleagues for the Post Office savings scare, and the Zinoviev letter, talks about bewildering young voters!
This is deep suspicion of the democratic process we have listened to, and has nothing whatever to do with the voting age. All that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was saying he could have said about voters aged 22 and if his real opinions were probed it would be shown that he feels the same way about that as at 19 or 20 years of age—or about women for that matter.
The party opposite has opposed every decisive changeover for many years, except on one famous occasion when, for electoral advantage, it switched very quickly, to dish the Liberals. To be constantly philosophically suspicious of the electorate is characteristic of the attitude of the right hon. and learned. Gentleman. This was the attitude that I found on Mr. Speaker's Conference when I became a member of it a few months after it started work. I quite deliberately—

Sir D. Renton: As the hon. Gentleman has made this attack on me, I should point out that consistently over the last 23 years the electorate have not shared his views about me.

Mr. Mendelson: The electorate take their decisions not on one single point, but on a whole spectrum of policy. No hon. Member on either side can claim that he personally determines the mind of the electorate. Therefore, the whole point is without value. We are not dealing in personalities—[Hon. Members: "Oh."] The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows that quite well that throughout the proceedings of Mr. Speaker's Conference we got on very politely and listened to each other.
I was about to say what has made me deliberately disclose what happened and how the age of 20 was arrived at. It is that we face in this Committee a point which we did not have to face in Mr. Speaker's Conference; we are reporting and putting a gloss on what happened in the proceedings in that conference. The Chief Whip of the Liberal Party knows that this was a problem we did not have to face in the conference.
If we had turned to that problem, I would have been as vehement then as I am today, because, in the absence of the minutes of Mr. Speaker's Conference —we need not now take time by arguing how advantageous it would be to have the minutes; I wish we had them—I repeat that the account of how the age of 20 was arrived at given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) is totally misleading. I am prepared to accept the challenge that, by special Resolution of the House of Commons, the minutes should be put at the disposal of every Member to test the statement I have just made.

Mr. Cranley Onslow: The last thing in the world I wish to do is to prolong the hon. Gentleman's speech. Does he understand that the difficulty which we are in is one which he and I, being both newcomers to Mr. Speaker's Conference, found ourselves in on our arrival there—that the decision had been taken in a previous Parliament and, it having been taken and the conference having lasted into the next Parliament, it would scarcely be altered? I share the hon. Gentleman's view that in the interests of accuracy there should not be any misreporting.

Mr. Mendelson: With his usual courtesy, the hon. Gentleman has tried to comment on how long I shall speak for. He knows that I normally disregard his views on that. I intend to do so this afternoon. I shall say what I have to say and what I think should be said, without the benefit of advice from him. The less he listens to me, the better I shall be pleased. To return to the serious aspect, I said that I would welcome a special Resolution of the House of Commons. The account which has been given is totally misleading.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: Will my hon. Friend give way.

Mr. Mendelson: No. I want to get on. I have only just given way.
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary asked a very precise and important question. Having pointed out that my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall had argued that some special merit attached to what he has claimed through-

out is the decision of Mr. Speaker's Conference, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary then asked, "If Mr. Speaker's Conference decided purely on merit that 20 was the right age, that is one thing, but if compromise played a part might not a completely different view be taken of the recommendations of Mr. Speaker's Conference?" This is why it is important to have a clear view of how the decision was arrived at.

Mr. Maclennan: My hon. Friend will surely acknowledge that it is wrong to attempt to say what motivated the votes of each member of Mr. Speaker's Conference. It is as wrong for my hon. Friend to do so as it was for my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) to do so. It is comparable in its effect to trying to say what motivated a jury. The fact that the recommendation of Mr. Speaker's Conference was overwhelming is significant. This is the one fact we can grasp. My hon. Friend's motivation was clearly different from that of his hon. Friends and possibly different from the views of those who supported him in his point of view.

Mr. Mendelson: There is a considerable difference between Mr. Speaker's Conference and a jury. It is now claimed that this decision was arrived at purely on the merits. During the next few minutes I shall endeavour to show that this is not true. It is not a question of guilty or not guilty. It is a question of how certain philosophical views on politics played a part in reaching a compromise.
4.45 p.m.
From the beginning, most of the representatives of the Tory Party on Mr. Speaker's Conference did not want any reduction in the voting age. They wanted to keep things where they were. Some of them in their secret thoughts probably wanted to increase it to 25, if possible, but they did not have a chance to propose that. That is the point from which we started—not from a clear table, but with a determination on one side of Mr. Speakers Conference not to have any change at all.
When I first arrived at Mr. Speaker's Conference, the first argument put to me by some of my very senior right hon. Friends was, "Any attempt to get the age down to 18 or 19 is doomed to failure,


because the Conservative members will have none of it. The only chance there is, because they want to keep it at 21, is perhaps to entice some of them on to 20".

Sir Douglas Glover: Who put that to the hon. Gentleman?

Mr. Mendelson: The hon. Gentleman does not know what my colleagues put to me. as that question shows, because he was not there for that discussion. He is a dear colleague of mine, but he was not there at the time of that discussion.

Mr. Strauss: Without accepting what my hon. Friend has said, may I ask whether he considers it right to report to the Committee private conversations which took place between hon. Members? If we start doing that, we could go very far and report all sorts of personal, private conversations which would not necessarily redound to the credit of those involved.

Mr. Mendelson: This is a policy. If policy views were expressed, and if compromises were the real basis of arriving at the age of 20, I am in duty bound to make the case and provide the evidence. Many such informal talks took place. Every member of Mr. Speaker's Conference knows that what I say is true. It started at 21 and people took the view that it would not be posible to get anything better than 20.
The second point that I wish to make as evidence is that the bare bones of the Report do not disclose the variety of views expressed in the official proceedings of Mr. Speaker's Conference. Great play has been made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and by the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire of the final vote, when only one member voted for 18, although previously there had been three. Neither my right hon. Friend nor the right hon. and learned Gentleman reported anything to the Committee—this has nothing to do with personal integrity; those who report often select; that does not reduce their personal integrity; it is the common parlance of parliamentary work; I am trying to put right an inadequate report—about the members of Mr. Speaker's Conference who proposed the age of 19.
The impression was given by my right hon. Friend and by the right hon. and learned Gentleman that it was just 24 to 1 against 18. That is nonsense. Several hon. Members had all sorts of differing views. One proposed 19. Others did not go so far as to make a definite proposal. Various reasons moved those Members to have all these differing points of view.
In some senses, Mr. Speaker's Conference is like a Select Committee. On any Select Committee, if hon. Members find that as they move along their proposals do not seem likely to be accepted, and if it is put to them forcibly, "After all, you want some reform. You want to move in the right direction", often they will recognise that it is no good standing out and they accept a compromise. There are present today very senior and some junior Members who have experience of Select Committees and who know that on every Select Committee there is a strong pull at some point to reach some sort of agreement. There is every reason to report fully to the Committee that that element was a factor in Mr. Speaker's Conference.

Mr. Raymond Gower: Does the hon. Gentleman's argument come down to this, that had the members of Mr. Speaker's Conference from his own party voted for the age of 18, they would have had a majority? Is it not significant that the large majority of those members voted in the contrary sense?

Mr. Mendelson: No, it is not significant, because the work of Mr. Speaker's Conference was not carried on on party lines. The argument was addressed to the issue, and Members listened carefully to one another.
What I am saying is that, as the argument had gone on for some time, the pull which exercises itself in any Select Committee to try to arrive at an agreed solution played an important part in Mr. Speaker's Conference. No one who was there could gainsay that; it is a simple matter of reporting. That being so, the case is fully made, that the answer to the question put by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary ought to be not what we have heard so far, that the age of 20 was arrived at purely on merit or on the evidence, but that it was arrived at as a characteristic compromise.
There is, therefore, nothing sacred about it. It was a compromise, as often happens in such a conference or committee. Therefore, the recommendation has not the force which my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall has said it would have as a decision arrived at purely on merit, and this Committee of the House of Commons is entitled to form its own view on the matter. There is no force of pure merit behind this majority recommendation.
I turn now from that question, and I can speak much more quietly. [Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."] Yes, I say that deliberately. I move back now into the argument over the issues.

Mr. Maclennan: Hear, hear.

Mr. Mendelson: The reporting of what actually happened at the conference had to come first. My hon. Friend says "Hear, hear". I come now to a point with which he was particularly concerned, namely, the question of the Latey Report. Here I record another strange experience which I had in Mr. Speaker's Conference. When I joined the conference, I tried several times to persuade my colleagues to discuss the voting age, but I always failed. The hon. Gentleman who is the Liberal Whip knows that I failed on every occasion over many months.
The answer given by right hon. and hon. Members on both sides was that we could not possibly discuss it then but we must wait for the Latey Report. Month after month I was told, "Wait for Latey". I shall come to the significance which my right hon. Friend now attaches to the Latey Report and its conclusions, but for many months everyone was waiting for Latey.
I assumed that enormous significance must be attached to the conclusions of the Latey Committee once it reported. Then the time came, and it was decided to have an interval during which the Latey Report could be studied. However, as soon as the Latey Report came out, a good many members of Mr. Speaker's Conference, including some of my right hon. Friends, immediately turned 180 degrees and said, "Latey is wholly irrelevant to the decision on the voting age".

Mr. Douglas Houghton: I deny categorically what my hon. Friend is saying. I was in the conference at that stage and I was present when these events took place. No one said, after the Latey Report came out, that it was irrelevant. Indeed, what we decided in waiting for it was that it was relevant. But it was not conclusive.

Mr. Mendelson: With great respect to my right hon. Friend, I repeat what I said a minute ago, that several right hon. and hon. Members who were members of Mr. Speaker's Conference said, after the Report had come out, that its conclusions were irrelevant for our purpose on the voting age because Latey had considered private responsibilities, not public responsibilities. I stand by that statement.

Sir D. Renton: The obvious reason for waiting for the Latey Report to be published before we started our discussion was so that we could be even more fully informed than we were from the mass of material we already had, not to follow slavishly anything which the Latey Committee said.

Mr. Mendelson: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is coming closer to the point I am making. There was never any question of slavishly following the Latey Report or any other Report. What was argued after the Report had been studied was that Latey had been talking about private responsibilities, which were quite different from public responsibilities, and that it was, therefore, not relevant to our discussion on the voting age. The response of certain other members of the conference and myself to that was that the reason why the Latey Committee had not given a recommendation on the voting age was that that question had been excluded from its terms of reference. That is the truth of the matter and the real reason.
What my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and others of us argued in Mr. Speaker's Conference, and what I am arguing today—this is the substance of the whole matter—is that, although the Latey Committee did not pronounce on the voting age, if the Government accept, as they have, and if Parliament accepts, that these tremendous new responsibilities should be given to young people from the age of 18, responsibilities in the law of contract and many


other respects, it is absurd to say that those same young people must not take any effective part in determining the political fortunes of their country.
That is the substance of the argument. Nobody has claimed any more. Nobody has claimed that we must slavishly follow any Report. It is to obscure that simple link that so many speeches and comments have been made with a view to drawing us away from the real reason why Latey is strictly relevant to the issue we are discussing.
The reference to people who do not vote—of course, we were all opposed to compulsory voting—is irrelevant, too. Those who do not vote are not necessarily more bewildered than many who do vote. In some cases, not voting is a deliberate political decision of highly sophisticated people who are less bewildered than some of those who might be voting for some hon. Members at an election, to put it no higher. The point is bad and irrelevant. What matters on the question of the right to vote is that the individual should be able to decide for himself or herself whether to vote; that right should not be denied under our Constitution.
I have one further point to make. This whole discussion—I refer to the discussion at large, not merely to our debate today—is of the greatest importance. One finds in it expression of a philosophy of distrust—it comes from both sides of the Committee—a philosophy of distrust of the electorate, not merely young electors. In the opposition to the Government's proposal to reduce the voting age, one senses clearly a philosophy of distrust of young people. All sorts of arguments are adduced.
On Second Reading, my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall talked of Scottish nationalists and followers of dictators, of people in different parts of the country who take one view or another on affairs of the day. What right has he to prescribe what views the voters should take in the future? The point is wholly irrelevant, it has nothing whatever to do with the discussion, and it should never be introduced. This is not the occasion to go into the faulty evidence which he presented on Second Reading. The whole argument is impermissible.
We have to make up our minds. There may not be another Speaker's Conference for 25 years. Is it right to make the change proposed on the ground of Latey's conclusions and on the powerful argument that our young people must be given opportunities to integrate themselves into the normal democratic political life of the country? There have been many speeches urging the Home Secretary to use the police against demonstrators. That is all some people seem to think of. There are many at these demonstrations who feel frustrated but deeply sincere and who find that there are not many ways which they can take in the ordinary political processes of the nation.
Is it not a far superior and more democratic way to say to them, "We may not agree with what you regard as reasonable or right, but here is your chance. Come in and argue with us. Take part in selecting your Parliamentary representatives. Make it your business to see that the democratic political life of the country is strong. Do not turn away from Parliament. Do not turn away from the ordinary processes of political decision-making". That is perhaps one of the most powerful reasons why the Government are right, and why I hope that the Committee will support the reduction of the voting age to 18.

5.0 p.m.

Sir Douglas Glover: I am very fortunate and glad to be called immediately after the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson), because I usually enjoy his speeches. But his speech today was very off-tone for a debate on the kind of subject we are considering. There was no necessity to imply the wrong motives to hon. Members on either side of the House. I do not imply the wrong motive to him, if he takes a different line to me on the subject.
The most fascinating part of my Parliamentary life was to be a member of Mr. Speaker's Conference for three years. Possibly because we worked behind closed doors, we worked as a completely non-partisan gathering. I still think that, on balance, we were probably right in our decision in the very early days in 1965 about publishing reports of the discussions and the minutes. I do not think


that if those minutes were to be published we should have had quite such frank discussions as we had, because we knew the whole matter was in confidence.
The right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) has this afternoon made the principal argument on which most of us reached our decision, but as the motives of many members of Mr. Speaker's Conference have been impugned today I should tell the Committee my reaction on the subject. I shall vote tonight for the Amendment that the voting age be reduced to 20. It would be rather absurd if I did anything else, as I was a member of a conference which, after much deliberation, decided that that was the recommendation it would make to the House.
When we started to think about the problem I was by no means wedded to 21 or 20, and I saw a good many arguments for the reduction of the voting age to 18. There are strong arguments on the matter. Reduction to that age does not mean that all young people vote at 18, but that they get on the register at 18. For Parliamentary elections it means that quite a number of people will not vote until they are 22 or 23. Therefore, I did not start thinking about this with any in-built prejudice that I should fight to the death for 21.
There is nothing sacrosanct about the voting age of an electorate. But the more investigations I made the more I came round to the view that 18 at the present time was not the right age for the electorate. I inquired of perhaps the largest and most active young Conservative branch in London, which took a poll of its members on whether they wanted the voting age from 21, which is not the proposal before the Committee. Sixty-five per cent. were for no change, 25 per cent. were for a change, and 10 per cent. did not know.

Mr. Ivor Richard: So that we may judge the validity of that evidence, how many of those polled were over 21 and already had the vote, and were, therefore, legislating as we are purporting to do, for those under 21? Has any national opinion poll or random sample on a national basis been carried out of the age group we are talking about –18 to 21?

Sir D. Glover: I return to what the right hon. Member for Vauxhall said, that there is very little hard evidence on the matter. The branch I am citing had about 500 members, of whom about 380 voted, which is a fairly high proportion. That is evidence that the Committee can consider. I am not saying that it is the law of the Medes and Persians, but that the Committee should consider it.
Everywhere we inquired we found—in my case much to my surprise—that there was very little support among the young for the reduction of the voting age to anything like 18. Many of them bluntly said that they did not think themselves qualified and that they did not want the responsibility, that they had other problems on their mind, such as their education. I am not saying that they were right, but simply that that was their reaction, which helped to influence me in forming my view.
When we began to debate the matter in Mr. Speaker's Conference I found similar views coming forward from other members, both Labour and Conservative, as a result of their investigations. They had gathered the same sort of general picture, and my mind began to harden against my earlier idea that perhaps 18 was a reasonable age for voting. It was purely as a result of the discussions in Mr. Speaker's Conference that I eventually decided that 20 was a reasonable age at this time, that it would get a large body of support both inside and outside the House, and that now that Latey had reported there was no longer anything sacrosanct about 21.
I took into account in forming my view that it would reduce the numbers of unfortunate people who just miss one General Election and, therefore, are fairly old when voting in the next. But we must take into account that the same age will apply for local government elections, and that means that the great majority of young people will be able to vote in local government elections at 18, and not simply come on to the register at that age.
I also discovered, again rather to my surprise, that whereas young people all seem to have a pretty good knowledge of our national affairs, Parliamentary business and so on, a great many of them had far less knowledge about local government and felt less competent to vote


in local government elections. Many of them had been away from their district or were occupied with education, and were not thinking about local problems, but through national Press, radio, and so on, they knew quite a lot about national problems. Many of them told me that they fell far less fit to deal with the nuts and the bolts of local government because they knew very little about it owing to their previous preoccupation with their education.

Mr. Peter M. Jackson: I am interested in the hon. Gentleman's point, but does he not agree that his statement about the attitude of young people to local government is reflected throughout the whole electorate? We have the evidence of the very low polls at local elections, which indicates apathy and lack of interest and knowledge on the part of the electorate. I cannot believe there is a great deal of substance in the hon. Gentleman's point. If he follows the logic of his argument, it might very well lead him to disfranchise the majority of electors at local elections because they show very little interest.

Sir D. Glover: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's views, but if he had listened a little more carefully he would have realised that I was not saying that I want to disfranchise anyone. I was telling the House of the attitude I found in gathering the information on which I could form a judgment in Mr. Speaker's Conference. I am not saying that that, at the time, was my view of local government. It was merely the information and knowledge I collected in my search for a sound judgment at the conference. I was a little surprised by the attitude I found, but it helped me form my view as to what should be done.
The other over-riding reason for moving cautiously is that, if we decide that the voting age should be 18, we shall never have an opportunity of raising it again if we find that we have made a mistake. It will be a mistake for all time. On the other hand, if we reduce the age to 20, and the House decides in five or 10 years' time that the age can go lower still, it can be done; and in a further 10 years, if the House feels that the age can still further be reduced, it can do so. But we should be very

cautious about lowering it by too much in one go in case this results—and I admit that I do not say this with great conviction—probably not in an irresponsible, but, what is more likely, in an electorate of unsound judgment. If we drop the age too much at one go, this House could well regret it in the years to come.
In any case, if we decided to reduce the age to 20, we should be doing nothing to stop it coming down to 18 eventually. On the other hand, if we decide on 18, we shall never get it back to 20 if we find that we have made a mistake. This is where caution should remain supreme.
It is not as though there is great feeling in the country for this alteration amongst the young or anyone else. I am sure that hon. Members have been astonished by the small amount of publicity this proposal has received and by the small amount of correspondence they have had on the subject. There is no burning desire among the old that the young should be enfranchised or among the young that they themselves should be enfranchised and, therefore, able to turn the views of their elders upside down.
I have given a great deal of thought to this and, as a result, I have settled for a higher age than I would originally have settled for. Because we should be cautious, we should accept the Amendment. In doing so, we should be doing nothing irrevocably wrong. We should be reducing the voting age and would not be stopping the House from taking further action in future. If we once go too far and, as a result, get a less responsible electorate, and therefore perhaps a less responsible House of Commons, we shall have done the democratic process more harm than perhaps we realise today.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. Richard: When I first came in to listen to the debate, I doubted the wisdom of the Government's proposal. Having heard every speech so far, I am utterly convinced of the righteousness of the Government's cause. It is surely rare to hear such a quantity of sanctimonious guff from both sides of the House in such a short period.
The hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) told us, first, that there is no demand among young people for a vote;


secondly, that they are not fitted to have a vote; and, thirdly, that, if they got it, it would damage the House of Commons. Those are three arguments that Mrs. Pankhurst would have understood very well, because they are precisely the arguments which have been used against any proposal to extend the franchise ever since the Reform Act, 1870. If there is a choice in constitutional matters of this sort between caution and boldness then I prefer the boldness of the Government's proposal to the hon. Gentleman's caution.

Sir D. Glover: The hon. Gentleman is turning the argument upside down. This is the first time the House has ever considered reducing the voting age. When the people were enfranchised. they were enfranchised at the age of 21, with the exception of women for a short period.

Mr. Richard: I do not want to be drawn into an historical argument with the hon. Gentleman, whose memory is longer than mine. But the voting age for women was not reduced to 21 until 1929, and what we are here talking about is an extension of the franchise to a section of the population now denied the right to vote—precisely similar circumstances to those considered in the past.
I come now to the validity of the decision of Mr. Speaker's Conference. It has been said on both sides that we should be careful about what we do today because, after all, Mr. Speaker's Conference does not meet very often and there might not be another one for 25 years. Having heard the squabble between members of the conference this afternoon, my reaction is, "thank heaven". The one thing one can say about Mr. Speaker's Conference is that those members of it who have spoken in this debate, either in interventions, questions or speeches, purporting to give a report of what that conference considered and decided, do not agree. To put it at its coolest and most neutral, the evidence as to what Mr. Speaker's Conference wanted to do is negative.

Mr. C. Pannell: Before my hon. Friend goes on speaking of Mr. Speaker's Conference, he should bear in mind that it is very much like the Cabinet in this context. We did not ask the Cabinet how it arrived at its consensus on House of

Lords reform, for example. This is not a squabble. It is my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) against the rest.

Mr. Richard: I was not a member of Mr. Speaker's Conference and, therefore, all I can do is judge by what I have heard and seen today. The great difference between a Cabinet decision and a decision by Mr. Speaker's Conference is that I have yet to hear a Cabinet Minister at the Dispatch Box opening his case by saying, "We had a full discussion on this in the Cabinet and by an almost unanimous decision we agreed that this proposal ought to be made", and then go on, with all the authority of his Ministry and his Cabinet membership. to add "We heard a great deal of evidence. I thought it impressive, but I am sorry—we cannot tell you what it is"
What we are being asked to do is to accept not only evidence which is not available to us, but to endorse a decision which was not unanimous and in the taking of which the motivations of those involved differed. I put it no higher than that. In considering whether or not to reduce the voting age to 18, the decision of Mr. Speaker's Conference ought to be taken as one of the factors in our calculations. It should not be followed slavishly.
The balance must therefore be weighed between two sets of decisions—on the one side, Mr. Speaker's Conference, and, on the other, the Latey Report. The Latey Report is a document containing a great deal of evidence. It is a public document and a full report, after mature consideration, which I can read. I can decide whether I think that it paid due attention to this or that portion of the evidence and I can therefore make up my own mind whether I believe it to be a good or bad report. The Latey Report is strong evidence indeed for concluding that the age of social responsibility among young people has now been reduced from 21 to 18.
I heard my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) and the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) and the hon. Member for Ormskirk all agree that each Member of Mr. Speaker's Conference made a subjective decision. Each tried to apply not an objective test to


decide how to determine at what age a person ought to be entitled to vote, but rather each applied a subjective test of the age of mental maturity. Mr. Speaker's Conference decided, on what evidence I know not, for the evidence we have not seen, that it was prepared to make the subjective judgment that mental maturity is reached not at 21, but at 20. I strongly believe this test and this approach to be utterly wrong. If a test of mental maturity were to be applied to decide entitlement to vote, the first thing to happen would be the disfranchisement of large chunks of the electorate at present on the registers.

Mr. Hamling: And large chunks of the House of Commons.

Mr. Richard: I must, I fear, leave that to my hon. Friend to develop. If one attempts to equate mental maturity with the age of voting, one is bound to run into difficulties, because, clearly, there are sections of the adult population who would not be entitled to take part in an election if they first had to pass a maturity test of responsibility or intelligence. I therefore utterly reject this equation of maturity with age.
What one ought to try to do is to arrive at a more sensible test as to the age at which people ought to be allowed to vote and I would suggest one very simple test. People ought to have the right to vote and to have a say about the way in which their lives are governed and in which their country is run, at the age at which society expects them to assume adult social responsibilities, and I do not see how that age, which the Latey Committee fixed so cogently and persuasively at 18, can really be separated totally from the voting age which Mr. Speaker's Conference wanted to reduce to 20.

Mr. Onslow: After that interesting argument, can the hon. Gentleman explain how he thinks that it was right for his party to include in its last election manifesto a conclusion, which was not based on any evidence which we have seen, a conclusion which was adopted, that the reduction of the voting age to 18 should be Labour Party policy?

Mr. Richard: I am pleased to note that at last the hon. Gentleman has realised that occasionally the Labour Party

is in the forefront of respectable opinion. The fact that he cannot evade is that since the Labour Party came out in favour of votes at 18, there is now some persuasive and cogent evidence to back up that decision.

Mr. Onslow: No.

Mr. Richard: Let us take the Latey Report.

Mr. Onslow: No.

Mr. Richard: The hon. Gentleman cannot go on saying "No" to the Latey Report when one of the things which it establishes is that young people now mature earlier and that society ought therefore to fix the age of legal and social responsibility at 18. It is absolute and arrant nonsense to say at one and the same time that young people are to be entitled to marry at 18, to enter into contracts at 18, and to bind themselves by hire-purchase agreements at 18, but that they are not entitled to vote in a General Election at 18 for a Parliament which will legislate over precisely those things for which they are now to be held responsible.

Mr. Lubbock: We have already had two opportunities to debate this matter and I shall, therefore, be brief, because there are many other matters in the Bill which we should all like to consider. However much we argue among ourselves, hon. Members are unlikely to change their opinions this afternoon.
Mr. Speaker's Conference spent a good deal of time discussing this matter in some detail. One or two hon. Members may have changed their minds during the course of those proceedings, but I think that many of them, including the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss), had already made up their minds before taking part in the conference and only reinforced their conclusions by some of the matters which were discussed, but to which we are not permitted to refer.
I think that this is highly regrettable and I have said so before. If the Committee is denied the benefit of knowing what arguments were put before Mr. Speaker's Conference, it is that much more difficult for us to come to any conclusion. At the risk of being wearisome I must say that, whatever Mr. Speaker's Conference may have decided—and we


all know that by precedent the proceedings in the conference are not made public, the precedents being those of 1918, 1929, and just after the war, and when, as the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) has reminded us, Mr. Speaker's Conference, reappointed after the 1966 election, held that it was bound by the decision of its predecessor, which worked between 1964 and 1966–surely the House of Commons is in a position to say that it believes it to be in the general interest of coming to a sensible conclusion on this matter that the proceedings should be printed and made available not only to hon. Members, but to people generally.
I hear the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) muttering. What is wrong with that proposition? Why should the proceedings of Mr. Speaker's Conference be kept under lock and key and hidden away in a dusty old file for evermore merely because that has been done in the past? It is a ludicrous argument, particularly when increasingly the work of the Select Committees is being opened to public scrutiny with the general approval of hon. Members and those outside who find it of some convenience.
I feel very strongly about this matter. I think that if the House of Commons were to take a general view, and it seems from the speeches made on both sides of the question, not just those in favour of votes at 18, but also those which support the right hon. Member for Vauxhall, we could get some action. I do not know whether a special Resolution is required, as the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) suggested, but surely we could have some machinery by which to accomplish what is obviously the general desire.
We have heard a good deal of argument about what happened at the conference and how this discussion originated when 24 members approved a reduction in the voting age to 20 and only one was against. It is important to get it straight that three members voted for the reduction to 18, but when that was defeated, I at any rate approved of the reduction to 20 on the basis that it was the most we could get. I was afraid that if we did not get the voting age down to 20, we might finish where we

started with the age at 21. My vote was not a vote approving the proposition that the voting age should be 20, but merely a vote for having some alteration and an expression of my fear that the conference might go right back to where it started.

Sir D. Glover: The hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) and the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) are forming a sort of alliance. The hon. Gentleman will admit that 22 out of 25 members voted against having votes at 18, so that he cannot say that there was a great division of opinion in the conference at that time.

Mr. Lubbock: I am merely arguing with the right hon. Member for Vauxhall and others, who say that the decision was practicaly unanimous, at 24 to 1, asking for the voting age to be reduced to 20. The Home Secretary wanted to get this clear, and I am explaining it as best I can. Hon. Members changed their minds. To be quite specific, of the three hon. Members who supported the reduction to 18. on the second vote one abstained, one voted for the reduction to 20 and one voted against, I think it was the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson). I hope that I have not committed a breach of privilege.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Quintin Hogg: I do not want to be discourteous to the hon. Gentleman, but does it not occur to him that some of us who were not on Mr. Speaker's Conference are getting a trifle tired of this part of the argument?

Mr. Lubbock: I accept the right hon. and learned Gentleman's rebuke. I referred to this only because the Home Secretary seemed to think it was of some importance. It did occasion a very heated argument between the hon. Member for Penistone and his right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall a few minutes ago. I am sure that no one would want to accuse the right hon. Member for Vauxhall of trying to mislead the Committee. It is just a question of how one puts these things, and I felt it necessary to explain in detail what happened. Taking the right hon. and learned Gentleman's advice, I hope that we can now leave that point.
I turn now to the views of the young people, to which the right hon. Member for Vauxhall attached some importance. I must begin by apologising to him because in the last debate we did not give the sources of this opinion poll which he has quoted on several occasions. I asked what the source was, and what sample the poll was based on, remarking that one could not be expected to take it very seriously when we did not have those facts. On rereading the previous debate I find that he did tell the House that it was a Hansard Society meeting which was attended by 3,000 young people, who were asked what their opinion was on the reduction of the voting age to 18. The figures were as he gave them.
He also quoted, what he called an important body operating in the Midlands, called the 18 to 21 Club. In his speech in October he said:
I know nothing about it except that it is a non-political body."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th Oct., 1968; Vol. 770, c. 65.]
That generally means, in my vocabulary, that it is composed of Tories. The voting at this club was two to one against a reduction in the voting age. The right hon. Gentleman does not tell us how many of the 3,000 members of this club who were circularised bothered to send back the forms, so that we do not know what the total poll was. I do not understand how he can say that it is an important body, when he knows nothing at all about it except that it is non-political.
The point made by the hon. Member for Penistone, that these polls of a club or the Hansard Society are not necessarily representative of what young people would say if it was possible to put the question to every one of them throughout the country, is important. If one is to ask for evidence on this subject, the best figures that can be quoted relate to the correspondence sent to the Latey Committee, which the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) will recall.
Although the Latey Committee was specifically told not to look at the question of the voting age, it received a large volume of letters on this subject–387 to be precise. It is interesting to look at these figures. Of the total, 96 argued in favour of a reduction in the voting age to 18, whereas only 48 believed that the

age of 21 should be retained, so that the figures given in this correspondence to Latey are precisely the opposite of those quoted by the right hon. Member for Vauxhall—exactly two to one in favour of a reduction in the voting age. In case anyone says that these figures do not add up, there were other letters which advocated an age of 16, 18, 19, 20, 24, 25, but by far the vast majority were concentrated on 18.

Mr. Emlyn Hooson: Would my hon. Friend not agree that, in these circumstances, the best view is to ignore both sets of figures and to concentrate upon our own judgment?

Mr. Lubbock: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for making this point. The one thing with which I agreed in the speech of the right hon. Member for Vauxhall was that this is a subjective decision. One cannot measure things like maturity, although the Latey Committee passed some general observations on this subject in the first paragraph of the Report. Basically we have to make up our own minds on this question, and we can do that only on the basis of the discussions which we have with young people in our constituencies and with others whose views we think important, but that again is a subjective matter. It is a subjective matter whether the right hon. Gentleman thinks that the Hansard Society is more important than the 387 letters submitted to Latey. I agree that these figures really do not mean a great deal, because the samples are very tiny in relation to the total population—

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Mr. Kenneth Lewis (Rutland and Stamford) rose—

Mr. C. Pannell: Sit down. The hon. Member has only just come in.

Mr. Lubbock: —of young people whom we are considering. It amounts to some 3 million who would be placed on the electoral role if the voting age was reduced to 18.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that until we began to discuss the question of votes at 18 it was not a question of importance at all? There are three public schools in my constituency, and I reckon that I will have three extra meetings at the next General Election, because they all have a sixth


form and many of these sixth formers will have votes. I have had three letters, two against votes at 18 and one in favour. Can the hon. Gentleman tell me what those figures mean?

Hon. Members: Nothing.

Mr. Lubbock: I do not know why the hon. Gentleman bothered to intervene. I thought that we had just agreed among ourselves that neither the figures given by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Vauxhall, which related to a sample of 3,000, nor the 387 letters submitted to Latey really help us to make up our minds. I am not sure why the hon. Gentleman thinks that three letters which he has received from public schoolboys in his constituency will break the back of these problems, in view of the numerical difficulties I have referred to.
May I turn to the argument put forward by the right hon. Member for Vauxhall and the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton). Perhaps this is relevant to the point made by the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Kenneth Lewis), and it is whether these young people would know what they are being asked to make up their minds about if they vote. Of course the two right hon. Gentlemen implied that they did not have the mental maturity or the background and experience upon which to form these extremely important decisions. I take the opposite view in relation to voting and other responsibilities dealt with by Latey. It appears to me, and this is an arguable and maybe controversial point, that the decision whether one gets married, and various other things, which were the subject of the Latey Committee's Report are a great deal more far-reaching than the exercise of the vote in Parliamentary elections. Cumulatively of course, the vote is an important thing. The hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) has been telling us what dire consequences will flow from allowing these young people to vote.

Sir D. Glover: I did not say that.

Mr. Lubbock: The hon. Gentleman rather implied it. He said that we would never have another opportunity of looking at this question if, unfortunately, we found that we had made a mistake. It would be too late to reverse the process. How

will this mistake manifest itself, supposing that these young people lack the judgment, maturity and knowledge to enable them to come to sensible decisions?

Mr. William Hamling: They will vote Tory.

Mr. Lubbock: The hon. Gentleman has anticipated me. Supposing, at the next General Election, we find that a vast majority of these young people between the ages of 18 and 21 vote Conservative, then hon. Members opposite will say, "We have made a mistake; they have obviously displayed the grossest form of political immaturity." On the other hand, if they were to vote Labour, the hon. Member for Ormskirk would make the same kind of remark. That would prove my case.

Sir D. Glover: That would be the clinching argument.

Mr. Lubbock: Certainly.
On a previous occasion, the right hon. Member for Vauxhall argued that young people would vote Scottish National and Plaid Cymru in Scotland and Wales respectively and that that was very much an argument against giving them the vote. This displays the most terrible arrogance. It is no business of the right hon. Gentleman how people use the vote once it is given to them. The fact that a lot of older citizens vote Scottish National does not mean that people in Scotland should be deprived of the vote and disfranchised. No one would make such an utterly undemocratic suggestion.
The right hon. Member for Vauxhall may think that these people are misguided; the Secretary of State for Scotland probably does. But that does not mean that we should impose some hindrance on them in the exercise of their free discretion any more than we would if people under the age of 21 were given the vote. In any case. I do not accept what the right hon. Gentleman says. We may have misled ourselves. Because in certain elections we find that young people are taking a fairly prominent part on the side of the nationalists, we think that they represent the majority of the population between 18 and 21. It may not be true at all. This is something which we shall discover only with experience.
I cannot accept for one moment the proposition that if we reduce the voting age to 18 it will seriously weaken Parliamentary democracy. The opposite is true. When we see young people on the streets demonstrating practically weekend after weekend, this shows that they feel left out of the political system as we know it, and the best way that we can involve them in Parliamentary democracy, which we want to retain, is by giving them the vote.

Mr. C. Pannell: The right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) said that he was bored by Mr. Speaker's Conference. So was I. I served on it—far too long. It went on for three years, and those people who were on it at the end did not know what had happened at the beginning. I could not have known, because it started soon after 1964 and I was a Minister. Then I was co-opted on to it in 1966.
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary attempted to take up the composition of Mr. Speaker's Conference. He said that we should know whether this was a deliberate decision and by what terms we made this decision. I might just as well ask the same question about the Cabinet. I am entitled to ask by what measure of subjective reasoning the Cabinet came to a consensus for that crackpot idea about House of Lords reform last week, especially when any amount of its members have since come up to me and said, "Charlie, include me out".
All that we can say is that at the end of the day Mr. Speaker's Conference registered a decision. I do not put it higher than that. But it is something that, after two or three years of waiting for Latey, we came to a decision. The time which Mr. Speaker's Conference spent on this matter was far greater than the time which the Cabinet could have spent. What we want to know is how the Government came to their decision. I do not wish to plead in aid Mr. Speaker's Conference. Just as it is improper to ask by what rationale Mr. Speaker's Conference took this decision, so it is improper for me to ask how the Cabinet came to its decision.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Would my right hon. Friend permit me?

Mr. Pannell: No; I have hardly started.

Mr. Jenkins: It is on this point.

Mr. Pannell: It is not on this point. This matter has been flogged too much by those who have spoken before me. I want to leave it now.
It is said that we waited for Latey. Of course we did.

The Deputy Chairman (Mr. Harry Courlay): It would help the reporters if the right hon. Gentleman would address the Chair.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Pannell: I am sorry, Mr. Gourlay, but you will understand that it is difficult when somebody is breathing down my neck. With my customary politeness, I wished to reply to my hon. Friend.
We waited all that time because the question of the voting age was outside the terms of reference of the Latey Committee. It was reasonable that we should see what the Latey Committee had to say. If it had said that the age should remain at 21, this argument would not have arisen. It was only because Latey introduced the question of the younger age of 18 that the matter was brought to our attention.
I am not much concerned with what Mr. Speaker's Conference decided. I made up my own mind. I did not compromise, because that is not my fashion, no more than it is the fashion of my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson). On balance, I originally thought that it was best to leave the age at 21. Why did we come down in favour of 20? We already allow for Y voters, and the annual register is only an annual register; it is not a six-monthly register. Therefore, in view of the number of people who vote first only at Parliamentary elections at about the age of 23, this brought the number affected down considerably. Bearing in mind that we are dealing with 17 months because of the rearrangement of voting dates, this considerably brings down the age, so that practically everybody will vote at 21. If we bring down the voting age for Parliamentary elections, it naturally follows for municipal elections. This was my reasoning.
I wish to blow sky high the idea that nowadays people are more mentally mature than they used to be. This is


nonsense. I joined the Labour Party and my trade union at 16.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: That was a bit late. I joined at 13.

Mr. Pannell: I can quite believe it. I do not mind serious interventions, but I do not want juvenile frivolity. I joined at 16 because that was the age at which my trade union allowed apprentice members to join. One could join the Labour Party at 16. I was one of the original members. I never joined any Labour League of Youth.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: It would not have let my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Pannell: My hon. Friend had better not tempt me too much.
When the great engineers' struggle broke out in 1922, when I was 20 years of age, I was not allowed to vote for a national strike. If the Amalgamated Engineering and Foundry Workers' Union had recently recommended a strike and put it to a ballot vote of its members, nobody under the age of 21 would have been allowed to vote. I had a word with my national officer about this the other day. He said that it was far too serious a thing for that. The argument "Old enough to fight old enough to vote" is completely spurious. Over 50 per cent. of the young people will be women who would not be called upon to fight, and this is an argument which is usually advanced by people who have no intention of fighting for their country anyway.
On the last occasion when the House cast a vote on this subject no one pleaded a younger course. The age of consent in the Sexual Offences Bill was 21, and if the age of 18 had been suggested the House would have thrown out the Bill.
Paragraph 565 of the Latey Report states:
 Nor has it been shown that earlier physical maturity has been accompanied by greater mental or psychological wisdom. The limits of the British Medical Association's evidence about this were traced in paragraphs 536 and 547 above. The National Citizen's Advice Bureaux Council do not see significant signs of earlier emotional maturity to justify an optimistic view.

Mr. Maclennan: May I draw the attention of my right hon. Friend to the fact

that he is reading from the minority Report.

Mr. Pannell: If the hon. Member had allowed me to conclude I would have said that it was the minority Report, and it is none the worse for that. These are facts which are not controverted.
The nub of the argument is how the young people feel about it. The result of my inquiries of young people is that they consider the years 18 to 21 to be bitter years. How many marriages of those under 21 are stable? It is quite frightening. Although the Latey Report considered that marriage contracts and the signing of contracts were matters for people under the age of 21. the casting of a vote, I consider, is in a different sphere. Broadly speaking, young people up to the age of 21 are largely concerned with their own position and prospects in society. It is only as we get older that we become larger in compassion and tend to think of others. [Hon. Members: "Oh."] I am sorry, but that is my experience. I think that there is a good deal of cruelty in the young. [Hon. Members: "Oh."] At any rate, I hope that I am more compassionate now than when I was 20.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: So do we all.

Mr. Pannell: I do not know why my hon. Friend tries to make himself look so much older than he is. This must surely be the first time in history when the great social advance of allowing these people to vote is being granted without it being asked or fought for. There has been over the last 50 years a great struggle for the franchise, the struggle for women's emancipation. and so on, in which one has taken part. Surely we will not now say that this is something just to be offered. I consider that the franchise is a great privilege. If I ever feel humility it is on election day when people young and old pile in and out of my committee rooms to lift me on their shoulders to express a view which is bigger than themselves.
One of my hon. Friends said that we should not ask whether these votes will go to the Scottish Nationalists. I say that we should ask. Scottish Nationalism in my opinion is one-eyed lunatic politics.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: How do you know?

Mr. Pannell: I do know; and I express my opinion. After all, my hon. Friend is of Welsh derivation battened on to a Scottish constituency. In my view the 20th century has shown that nationalism is an evil. We have to consider the world as a whole. I hope that no one would look at the casting of a vote purely in the context of being a Welsh-man, a Scotsman or an Englishman. A vote cast in this House is a vote not only on behalf of our constituents but probably on behalf also of 4 million people in Rhodesia. We must take a larger view of politics. I am told that the granting of the vote at 18 would mean that many of the seats of my party would be lost to the Scottish Nationalists. I should consider that an evil.
The people who speak of being Clause Four Socialists had better remember that Clause One of our Labour Party constitution is the mandate to maintain our party in Parliament and not throw it away recklessly. They must be responsible about this. I am not able to convince anyone here very much, but I speak to convince myself.

Mr. Hamling: The need is great.

Mr. Pannell: I look with compassion on my hon. Friend. He lives near to me and I often ask myself why people vote for him.
I approached this matter after reading the Latey Report, after seeing the balance of the arguments in the Latey Report and speaking to a great number of young people. Those young people considered that this was a responsibility which they did not want. The minority Report states that we should be putting a burden on shoulders sometimes too young to bear it. It seemed to me, for the reasons which I have stated, that 20 was the proper age. Even my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone would not think that I would be lightly diverted from that course in order to secure a compromise.
There are those who say that the vote should be given in order to prevent the demonstrations which have recently occurred. There were demonstrations in my day for far worthier causes, such as unemployment, which occurred in the re-

volutionary period following the first world war. This is not a new manifestation. In those days it was not suggested that people must be given a vote. Is it thought that the casting of a vote once every four or five years will get this nonsense out of their systems? Of course it will not.
To explain why these happenings occur now it is necessary to seek deeper into other causes. It is possible to choose the age of 16 because it is the age of consent for girls; it is possible to choose the age of 21 because it is the age of consent for boys; but these are not the criteria by which we came to a decision. The Speaker's Conference represented a consensus of what I believe. I cannot say what was in the minds of other people who took part in that conference. In my own honest opinion, this is the right age at which to give a person the vote. I say that after the greatest study and consideration arising from a lifetime of experience of moving among people in politics. I must cast my vote tonight in support of that opinion, because I can cast it in no other way.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Bruce Campbell: There is no magic in any age. Some people mature a great deal earlier than others. It may be that it depends upon their natural talents or environments. All that we have to do is to try to discover, if we can, the age at which most people are sufficiently mature and responsible to be allowed to vote. It is a matter upon which we all have different opinions, and I am only sorry that right hon. and hon. Members opposite are not to be allowed to express those opinions.

Mr. Hamling: I advise the hon. and learned Gentleman to watch them.

Mr. Campbell: I take the view that there are responsible people on the benches opposite, many of them with children of their own of perhaps 18, 19 or 20, and they meet young people of those ages in their constituencies. I am sure that they could form their own judgments about whether such young people are capable of exercising a vote. It is unfortunate that they are not to be allowed to back their judgments in the Division Lobby.

Mr. Hamling: But they will. Does the hon. and learned Gentleman imagine that they will take any notice?

Mr. Campbell: We shall see. In my view, young people should have the right to vote at 18 and, for once, the Government are right. I came to that conclusion very forcibly in the course of a by-election which I fought recently when I met a great many young people who told me that they had no vote. I was greatly impressed by them as being people of responsibility who ought to have been allowed to exercise a vote. I remember meeting a 19-year-old girl who was heavily pregnant and who said to me, pointing to her rotund figure, "I am old enough for everything else, but not to vote." There was a young woman running a home, looking after a husband and about to start a family, bearing all the responsibilities of life, yet not having a right to vote.
Whether the Government's proposal will have any electoral repercussions remains to be seen. Obviously the Labour Government consider that it will help them to give young people the vote at 18. If they think that, they miscalculate. Young people of 18, 19 or 20 whom I have met recently struck me as the sort of responsible people who will vote Conservative—[Hon. Members: "Oh."]
We ought not to consider that matter. We ought to give them the vote if they are capable of exercising it. It is wrong to consider what may be the electoral repercussions. If we think that they are capable of exercising the judgment required, they should have the vote, remembering that there is no cut-off point at the other end. When people become old, senile and incapable of exercising a vote, we do not deprive them of it. It must be remembered, too, that most young people are taxpayers. Most of them are single people and heavy taxpayers. It is a breach of the principle of no taxation without representation to deprive them of the vote.
I gave evidence before the Latey Committee. I urged that young people under the age of 21 should not be allowed to marry without their parents' consent. I still think that the lifelong contract of marriage is of such grave importance that young people under 21 should not be allowed to enter into it without their

parents' consent. However, that is not to be compared with the franchise, where quite different considerations apply.
It is said by some hon. Members that young people do not want the vote and that there is no great demand for it. That may be so, but, after all, this is not Australia, and voting is not compulsory. People need not exercise the vote if they do not want to. I submit that these young people at least should have the opportunity of participating in the Government of this country.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: It is not unusual for me to disagree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell), but, normally, I respect what he says even though I disagree with it. That was true towards the end of his speech when he rose to the level which I am accustomed to expect from him. However, in his earlier remarks, when I tried unsuccessfully to intervene, it was appropriate that he should turn his back to the Chair because, for most of the time, he was speaking out of the back of his neck. When he reproached the Cabinet for implementing Labour policy in this connection—

Mr. C. Pannell: It is not Labour Party policy.

Mr. Jenkins: With great respect, I insist that it is. When he reproached the Cabinet in that way, it seemed to me that he was taking away something which most of us were very glad to have. It is rare for the Cabinet to be in line with the general view of the party. It is something that we should nourish and not throw back in their teeth. This is an occasion when we find ourselves in unity with the Cabinet, and it is one that we should make the most of and take to heart.
As an example of what I felt was not up to my right hon. Friend's normal level, he appears to nurture minority decisions when they are made by the Latey Committee, but he brushes them aside when they are made by Mr. Speaker's Conference. It seems that he has one rule for Mr. Speaker's Conference and another for the Latey Committee.

Mr. C. Pannell: I was merely quoting evidence to the Committee. Incidentally, while I am on my feet, may I say that this is not Labour Party policy? All that


we undertook to do was to refer the matter to Mr. Speaker's Conference.

Mr. Jenkins: My right hon. Friend and I must disagree about that. At least, I have given him the opportunity of making his point.
Moving the Amendment, my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) spoke of the fact that the Whip is on. I do not think that that is out of order on this occasion, but I do not think that the punishment which will befall a right hon. Member of his standing and experience as a result of going into the Lobby against the Government will be very harsh. My right hon. Friend need not worry too much. Possibly it will be no more than the equivalent of a slap across the wrist with a piece of candyfloss.
Mr. Speaker's Conference is an important body. I was going to say that its decisions were important, but not sacrosanct. Having heard how some of its decisions were reached I doubt whether they are even important. In any event, the final decision is for us, not for Mr. Speaker's Conference.
The Labour Party's intention in this respect s one which the Cabinet has probably taken into consideration in reaching its conclusion. But on both sides it has been suggested pretty strongly that if the decision to make the voting age 18 is carried out, it will be to the political disadvantage of the Labour Party. This has been strongly hinted at here and elsewhere. I doubt this. I wonder whether those who believe it to be true have considered the political consequences of not now going back to 18. I suggest that if we take their advice and shilly shally, the political consequences will be very bad for the Labour Party. If we follow the Cabinet's advice we will do what we think to be right and what we should do, and the political consequences will look after themselves.
My experience of talking to young people about the nature of different problems is that they are as capable as anybody else—possibly more capable than some of fairly advanced years—of weighing up and considering the issues before us today. For this reason I will heartily support the decision in the Bill and will oppose the Amendment. I hope that a substantial majority of hon. Members on

both sides will throw this Amendment out, which is what it deserves.

Mr. David Waddington: Despite what was said by the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson), I have no distrust of the young people of this country and no worries about the way in which they will exercise their votes if this proposal for votes at 18 is passed. My worry is not so much about the responsibility of people between the ages of 18 and 21, but that we should act responsibly in dealing with the matter.
It surely cannot be denied that a change to 18 will mean a very drastic change in our constitution. We have heard that it will mean 3 million new voters on the register and that more new voters will be going on the register at one time than ever before. It is, therefore, a drastic reform in the constitution which is being proposed, whereas votes at 20 would be a moderate reform to which we are used and no doubt it would be acceptable to the country at large.
It seems odd that a change should be advocated when it is patently obvious from the speeches which have been made today and on previous occasions that there is little, if any, pressure for it. I speak with some experience about this matter. I was anxious to speak today because I thought that the Committee might like to hear the impressions of someone who has faced the electorate more recently than most other Members.
The hon. and learned Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Bruce Campbell) said that a lot of young people at the Oldham, West by-election showed political interest. I do not think that he was suggesting that people were coming to him in their tens and hundreds and complaining that they were unable to vote because they were under 21. The meetings at the Nelson and Colne by-election, which I fought, were all well-attended. There were plenty of young people at those meetings and the question of votes at 18 was raised only once—by a questioner who was obviously hostile to the proposal.
People nowadays talk glibly about participation. I should expect those anxious to participate, yet feeling themselves unable to do so without a vote, to come forward and say so. But no one this


afternoon has challenged that they do not. They are not coming along and saying that they feel unable to participate because they are deprived of the vote. Therefore, the argument about participation is so much bunkum. If anyone is politically interested, yet under 21, there is no need for that person to have a vote to participate in politics in this country. I cannot forget my own entry into politics. When I went up to university at the age of 18 I had no difficulty in participating in politics. I did not feel that my political interest grew when I passed the magic age of 21 or that I had been deprived of anything when I did not have a vote during the first years when I was playing a part in politics.
6.15 p.m.
One argument which does not seem to have been advanced with much force today is that, somehow or other, if we give votes to people at 18 we will reduce student unrest. It has been suggested that all that will disappear in the twinkling of an eve—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Penistone will remember that I said that this argument had not been voiced strongly today, but I have heard it voiced on other occasions. It is not a strong argument, because most of the people leading the student unrest deride the whole democratic process as we know it, and a vote within the system would be heartily despised by them. It would not console them in any way.
My feeling about the matter is that logic is not on the side of the Government. It seems to be suggested that, because of the proposals made by the Latey Committee, logic is on the side of those who want votes at 18 and not on the side of those who want votes at 20. I acknowledge that logic can be pushed too far, but there is a certain logic in the proposition that we should expect the privilege of voting when we have finished our education, not before. It seems somewhat absurd that we should be seriously discussing a proposal which, if passed, would lead to more schoolboys in their sixth forms having the vote. Although logic can be pushed too far, there is a certain logic in the proposition that the vote should be a privilege bestowed upon the young person when he has completed his education.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that the majority of young people finish school at 16 and that, even under the new system with votes at 18, they would still not have the vote until they were 20 or 21?

Mr. Waddington: I appreciate that. I was the first to say that logic must not be pushed too far. Hon. Members opposite have been saying that logic is on their side because the Latey Committee's proposals support the suggestion that there should be votes at 18. On the other side we are entitled to say that if we are now moving into a position where, as the years pass, more people are staying on at school and having the benefit of university education, or some further education, that is an argument for postponing the franchise rather than the reverse. I put it no higher.
I see no connection between a man being able to have a mortgage or a hire-purchase agreement and a man being able to vote. There will never come a time when men and women will assume all legal responsibilities at the age of 18, a point which has been made by hon. Gentlemen opposite. That time will not even come when the Family Law Reform Bill becomes law and the Latey Committee's proposals are implemented.
Nobody has suggested that the age of majority for criminal purposes should be 18, that at 18 a young male offender should immediately go to prison and not borstal, that for a girl the age of consent to sexual intercourse should be raised from 16 to 18 to bring about uniformity or that the Sexual Offences Act should be amended so that a boy of 18 can consent to a homosexual act in private. We will not get uniformity, even if all the Latey proposals are implemented, and that is a good argument for not talking so much about Latey and instead looking at the merits of the case.
Whatever the merits, a radical change like this should not take place against the advice of a body like Mr. Speaker's Conference which, for all the arguments today, discussed and considered this matter for a considerable time. A change of this nature should not take place unless there is clear evidence of demand for it. I am prepared to accept the recommendations of Mr. Speaker's Conference, which represent the sort of


moderate reform which will have the support of the nation as a whole.

[Mr. George Rogers in the Chair]

Mr. Hamling: As I listened to the remarks of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Waddington) I began to wonder whether he intended to produce some arguments in favour of refusing the vote to virtually everybody. He seemed to imply that nobody really had the right to vote. He said that young people between 18 and 20 should not vote, because they did not want it. As they did not want to vote or participate in politics, he maintained that they should he given the vote as a privilege bestowed on them only when they had earned it. That argument could be used about the population as a whole.
I urge the hon. Gentleman to remember that that is not what the argument is about. The people of Britain do not get the vote because they earn it. They never have done. We do not enjoy our franchise as a privilege bestowed on us by a benevolent society. If people had to earn the vote, a lot of people would not be entitled to it.

Mr. Waddington: I did not suggest that the vote was something to be earned. Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that, all other things being equal, it is more desirable that people should have the vote when they are mature than when they are immature?

Mr. Hamling: When the hon. Gentleman reads the report of his speech in tomorrow's Hansard I hope that he will compare it with the content of that intervention.
The right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) averred that he was rather bored with Mr. Speaker's Conference. I assure him that we all are. I do not want to say much about it, except that I was once a member of it, and then I left. Considering the remark of the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) about it being a nonpartisan gathering; if the members of Mr. Speaker's Conference in my day were non-partisan, then commend me to a few partisans. The only significant thing that I recall about them is that they all had riproaring prejudices and that they brought them to Mr. Speaker's Conference

implacably formed. That has been obvious from the speeches of at least two of my right hon. Friends.
I hope that I will not be out of order in reporting a private conversation. I understand from one of my other right hon. Friends that my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) nearly became a Scottish hon. Member in the sense that he almost came to represent the Gorbals. I do not know what might have happened if we had had his kind of cockney and Yorkshire eloquence in the Scottish Grand Committee. What is more, he almost became Welsh, because he supported the majority of Mr. Speaker's Conference by quoting the minority of the Latey Report. He said, in effect, "We decided to discuss votes at 18 only because Latey was discussing the age of majority". My conviction about the rightness of votes at 18 was implanted in me a long time before I ever saw Mr. Speaker's Conference and even before I became an hon. Member of this House.
Many curious arguments have been adduced, not the least the suggestion that young people are not entitled to vote because they lack knowledge of local affairs. There are many people voting in local elections who know very little indeed about, for example, the rating system, the committee system operating in local authorities and even, indeed, the name of the local authority in which they are voting. If this sort of argument is to be held against young people, Lord help some of the over 21s and over 40s. If an examination paper were set on local government to the comprehensive sixth form that I know—the place where I sometimes do a little teaching in British constitution—the pupils would get more marks than many hon. Members of this House. This is not an argument about whether people have knowledge. Again, we do not give people the franchise in Britain because of their knowledge, wisdom and experience. We give it to them because they are people, and that is the only justification.
We have heard some anti-democratic arguments today about young people not having the right to vote because they do not want it. That argument was used against the suffragettes. It was said that they represented only themselves and were not speaking for women generally.


"They are only a minority of agitators. The vast majority of women want to sit at home doing their knitting and looking after some man." That was often said when people argued against giving women the vote. The same argument of maturity was used when it was decided to give women of 21 the vote. It was said that they were immature, emotional and not able to discuss things with the same objectivity as men. This is the arrogance of those in power. The same argument is used now. We say that we have the emotional maturity but that these younger folk do not, so that they should not have the vote.
It is precisely this kind of philosophical arrogance which is behind all the governments of colonial powers who have refused to give the vote to subject peoples. This is what Ian Smith is saying; and his friends in this House are saying that these people should not have the vote because they have not been educated. Meanwhile, of course, the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Waddington) implied that sixth formers should not have the vote because they have been educated. I suppose that one pays one's money and takes one's choice in weighing up the arguments, including the ridiculous ones. People have the vote because they are people and because they should vote.

Mr. Hogg: Would the hon. Gentleman agree that that would seem to be an argument in favour of giving the vote to youngsters aged one and two, because they, too, are people?

Mr. Hamling: With that impeccable logic which the right hon. and learned Gentleman always commands, he has touched precisely on the subject to which I was coming. If it is not based on education, on maturity, or on the so-called objectivity of which some hon. and right hon. Members have spoken, on what do we base the right of people to have the vote at a certain age?

Mr. Hogg: Purely arbitrary.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Hamling: A purely arbitrary decision, says the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I wonder what all the fuss is about, because all these people want is to stick to age 20. At present the age

is 21. We have all this great kerfuffle over one year—reducing the age from 21 to 20. The Amendment seeks to make the voting age 20, but what is magical about 20?

Mr. C. Pannell: What is magical about 18?

Mr. Hamling: I will tell my right hon. Friend—and I nearly said my right hon. and learned Friend. We have already decided, and my right hon. Friend himself has agreed with this, that in the making of marital contracts and legal contracts these people are to be considered adults—

Mr. James Dempsey: Would my hon. Friend bear in mind that one can make a marital contract at the age of 16 in Scotland, not 18, and those people have to provide homes, and furnish and equip them? They have hire purchase to pay. If they can pay taxes at this age we should consider letting them vote at this age. And many who are illiterate can vote.

Mr. Hamling: The point is that whatever may be the case in countries outside England, this Parliament has decided that 18 shall be the age for entering into marriage and legal contracts. I am convinced that entering into marriage, where one may marry in haste and repent at leisure, is a much more serious matter than voting in a single General Election. One can vote in a single General Election at age 18 and there is a great deal of leisure in which to repent, but it is not so great, perhaps, as in the case of marriage. One has to wait, even at the most, only five years in order to get rid of an objectionable Government. The difficulty in regard to marriage is that with a wife come other responsibilities, and it is not always so easy to shed them.
I regard voting in a single election as of much less significance than entering into the state of matrimony, and certainly undertaking financial obligations under a legal contract I would regard as a much more serious matter than engaging in just a single election. Entering a legal contract may bind one, not for just a brief period but for life, and if one can at the age of 18 enter into a legal contract of this significance, voting is surely not a more serious obligation.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) tried to distinguish between people maturing at different ages for the two purposes of civic and private rights, but there are some people who obviously mature at an earlier age than others for civic as well as private rights. People vary, and I can well imagine that there are people who mature earlier for the purpose of certain civic rights than, perhaps, for the carrying out of contracts. If it were otherwise, there might not be so many people put in prison for fraud.
When one sums up this debate, all these arguments about maturity, and about ability and about Mr. Speaker's Conference fall on one side compared with this single fact. We have decided that young people become adults at 18. We have decided that argument. This is the point of view which is accepted in all parts of the Committee—[Hon. Members: "No."] We have decided that it is right that people should be able to enter into marriage at 18—[Hon.Members: "No."] Then all I can say is that all this universal commendation of the Latey Report strikes me as being rather odd against the disputing by hon. and right hon. Members on the point I have just made. They universally commend the Latey Report. This is all the argument we have had this afternoon. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not now go back on what he said earlier but that is what the argument has so far been about, and it is precisely the argument that was put forward on Second Reading. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman is in a state of unique isolation that is, perhaps, a customary position for him but it is one which need not detain the Committee for very long.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) knows, I am completely in favour of free votes on these issues and I exercised that vote only last week—[An Hon. Member: "In the correct Lobby."] Naturally it was in the correct Lobby. I am always in the correct Lobby—on the side of reason. But hon. Members are entitled to form their views in this respect and, knowing them, I know that they will. I would tell those who peddle this argument about free votes to look at what previous Governments have done with previous Bills. This side has a much better record in

exercising individual conscience on any occasion than has the party opposite, so let us have none of that nonsense from the other side. My right hon. Friend is entitled to ask for a free vote, but no one on that side is entitled to demand that this Government should give a free vote, We can, because we are the people who exercise it—they cannot.

Mr. J. E. B. Hill: I agree with the hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling) when he says that for any individual the choice of a marriage partner or the entering into a contract is more important and significant to him than is the casting of a vote in a Parliamentary election, but that is not the point of the debate. We are discussing whether or not the two senior teenage groups—some one or two million persons —should be added to the Parliamentary electorate. That is the point which is of importance to the nation as a whole.
I was a member of Mr. Speaker's Conference, but only at the last moment, and only for this particular item on the agenda. I therefore came to it, I hope, with an open mind and with no previous long study of the question.
I have come to regret the secrecy of our official proceedings if only for the reason that an authorised version would correct at least some of the tendentious reports we have had this afternoon and also because the fact of secrecy is somewhat repugnant to this House. Hon. Members would like to know whether the members of Mr. Speaker's Conference were carried by arguments which would commend themselves to hon. Members. To that extent a collective decision must lose weight with the House and make it easier for the Government to ride roughshod over our views.
Most of the members of that conference, certainly the Liberal and Labour members, came to it with some previous commitments. They had fought the last Election on manifestoes recommending votes at 18. The really significant point, and this is all published, is that the conference decided by a majority of 22 to three against votes at 18. Had the majority been a narrow one, say 13 against and 12 in favour, some of the arguments of the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) might have had some weight, but we cannot get over the fact that there


was virtual unanimity among those who clearly started from different positions.
As a newcomer, I was surprised that there was not greater interest in this subject, that there had not been more representations about it and that I had not received more. Unlike all previous extensions of the franchise, there has not been great pressure for this change. The suffragettes made plenty of trouble, but there has not been a single demonstration of any significance in favour of votes at 18. I started by wondering whether our purpose was to find an age below which young persons would not feel substantially deprived of their civic rights or, more positively, to find an age when the right to vote began to be valuable and meaningful to society as a whole.
There were some powerful arguments for lowering the age substantially. I was less impressed by the "die for my country" thesis. I preferred the argument, "No taxation without representation", but the difficulty there is that no age is low enough. This makes me wonder why the hon. Member for Woolwich. West said that he had always thought of 18 as the right age and the right answer.

Mr. Hamling: The reason was that some young men used to fight at 18. I did not seek to use that argument today. but that is why I used to hold that view.

Mr. Hill: The hon. Member said that it was always implanted in his mind that 18 was the right age. He has great experience of teaching the young. I would have expected him to say, why not 17 or 16? There is no magic about any one year. The argument for lowering the age was linked with the educational progress and development of informed interest among younger people. The political scientist, Richard Rose, has said that if intelligent voting presupposes interest and information in politics, most of the old and middle-aged, as well as young persons, would be eliminated.
6.45 p.m.
I think it is generally agreed that the British people have some flair for politics. If we have political common sense it may perhaps be founded not so much on well informed interest in politics as on a capacity for relating politics to real life as people see it and live it. The feeling

is obviously common here that it is a matter of judgment rather than of information. For many people that judgment will be largely instinctive. I do not believe it is any the worse for that.
We had some consensus in that an element fit judgment, a necessary element, is the question of maturity. For most people maturity must come from having some experience of adult life. I think there is a significance here in the difference in time between an earlier school-leaving age and a later age for voting. If one leaves school at 14 or 15 and votes at 21 there is a longer period than if one leaves school at 15 or later and votes at 18. Broadly, I accept the Latey proposals. Young people want freedom to marry and to make contracts. I disagree with so many hon. Members who have spoken today suggesting that therefore the voting age must be the same as the age of majority for other purposes. I simply rely on Latey. I ask hon. Members to refresh their minds by going back to paragraph 25, which the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) quoted in part. I add the quotation of this sentence:
It is a very different thing to cope adequately with one's own personal and private affairs and to measure up to public and civic responsibilities.
Latey said that there was no necessary link between voting age and the age of majority for personal and private rights. If one committee had been charged with both subjects, the age of majority and the voting age, I think it very unlikely—in fact, 100 to one against—any such committee saying that both should be the age of 18. I am sure that would not have happened. It is only because of the split of the subject matter that we have this argument today.
The best reason for proceeding with some degree of caution has been the attitude of the young themselves. It seems somewhat curious that although the professional political parties and youth organisations all put forward their case for votes at 18 except admittedly the Conservative Party and the Bow Group which suggested the age of 20–through the political spectrum we seem to get a greater urgency for adopting the age of 18 in inverse proportion to the degree of freedom which those parties give to their own youth.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: As the hon. Member is talking about freedom, would he agree that the best way of showing freedom would be to allow anyone of 18, 19, 20 or 21 to decide for himself whether he wanted to go on the register? Young people would then show an interest, and if they went on the register they could have the democratic right of freedom to decide.

Mr. Hill: That is an interesting view, but why not start at 11 or 11 plus? How would one preserve such people from the inevitable pressures to go on the register which would be no less than the pressures to exercise the vote?

Mr. Lewis: So what?

Mr. Hill: My experience is that young people when interested in politics take a deep and informed interest. I am not against their having votes, though I would limit it to 20, certainly at this stage. I cannot say that it would be an insignificant move, because my calculations of the number of voters aged 18 and over who would enter my constituency electorate comes to more than 38 times my present majority.
My local inquiries show very little enthusiasm for this project. One can recognise three types of young voters. They are not greatly different from older voters. There are, first, the intelligent and well-informed who may take a close interest. They are most obviously represented by the whole body of students. It is significant that students have not been campaigning for the vote. After their recent conference I wonder whether this may not have been unconnected with the desire of the student leadership not to have their conference transformed from a mainly educational conference into a largely political one. But they do not, because they have no vote, fail to take keen interest in elections. Votes might even deprive them of some of the interest they take in elections in being in a particular constituency on polling day.
If this proposal goes through, I wonder where students will be on polling day. If the universities are up, students will presumably have the choice of postal votes. If it is the vacation, students wishing to vote must presumably stay at home. To what extent is it expected that students could register on the electoral

roll if they have lodgings in university towns? It would seem to be possible for political activitists to seek to build up a group of students with votes based on university residents in lodgings, assuming that this was covered at the time that the forms were distributed and completed in October.
Even students who take an interest are not necessarily keen on votes at 18. The most striking reply I received was when I said to a student, "Surely you would like your contemporaries to have the vote". The reply was, "No. I take an interest. Many do not. I would be sorry to see my views, or views like mine, outvoted by a larger majority who cared very little." This is the second category—those who do not know and do not care. We all meet them. The Home Secretary suggested on Second Reading that such people need not take part in an election. That is the worst possible argument for extending the franchise, because there is a vast difference between not caring and the considered abstention.
Thirdly, there are the young and old people who would genuinely like to take a proper interest but who are preoccupied. In the case of the young, they may be adjusting to adult life. They say that they are not yet ready. This becomes significant if the view is taken that at elections people do not so much switch across. What decides elections is whether people adhere to and positively support the party or the candidate with whose principles they are in general sympathy. They form a judgment at any one election on whether the representatives of their fundamental attitude and beliefs is good enough. The question of differential abstention is probably the most important factor. It follows that the young person should have time to acquire independently a general view about life and his attitude to it—a mixture of temperament, inclination and experience—without slavishly following or reacting to parents or teachers. A certain amount of time in adult life is highly desirable.
If the young are in this formative process, I would like to spare at any rate those who would be troubled by the attentions of canvassers and the party political pressures which inevitably would come upon them. If people with the


vote are unfixed in their loyalties, we can only assume, politics being what it is, that pressures will be brought to bear to persuade them to adhere to one party or another.
I do not derive any help from what is happening in other countries. It has already been said that, with the exception of the Iron Curtain countries, votes at 18 do not operate in any significant European countries. About six South American States have votes at 18. I prefer the robust democracy of Australia which only last week rejected the proposal for votes at 18 and is sticking to 21.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: What has that got to do with it?

Mr. Hill: It has got much to do with it. If Australia is a good representative of Western and Commonwealth democracy, what obtains there is an example which is worth studying and should not be rejected out of hand.
If there is an error on the Latey side and it transpires that teenagers suffer by lack of experience in resisting commercial pressures, or whatever it may be, that could always be corrected by amending legislation. It is virtually impossible to retract any extension of the franchise. So far as I know, it has not been done before.
There can be no finality. It is a matter of subjective judgment. The reason why so many of the arguments have been the same and our speeches have seemed to follow a pattern, with two notable exceptions, is that the arguments have commended themselves to a majority on Mr. Speaker's Conference. The only finality in the matter is the Government's decision to force through what the Prime Minister believes is Labour's gift to the young wage earner. Its effect will be to accentuate the swing of the pendulum against the Government of the day. In this instance it will certainly be a boomerang at the next election. I would think better of the Government, if they wish to reject the findings of Mr. Speaker's Conference, if they were to rely on the mature judgment of the House of Commons as a whole on a free vote.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. John Lee: I shall not follow the hon. Member for Norfolk, South (Mr.

J. E. B. Hill) very far, though I must pass a comment on his observation about pressure groups. I am sure that my hon. Friends must have been touched to hear the concern which the hon. Gentleman expressed for the way in which young people, so fragile and so vulnerable, are subject to the pressures of commercialism. When I take that argument and set it against all the attempts which were made to resist the extension of commercial television into the viewing life of very much younger people than those with whom we are here concerned, I find the hon. Gentleman's argument thoroughly disingenuous.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss), in opening the debate, was subjected to a good deal of fireworks from all about him. As one who takes a view different from his, I think it right to note that he deserved a word of praise, even from his opponents, for his good-tempered and good-natured acceptance of a good deal of heckling. I hope that my right hon. Friend will take advice on the matter of voting from my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling). I find that the Right wing of our Parliamentary Party is generally rather more inhibited about staging revolts than the Left wing is. I assure my right hon. Friend that I do not bother much about Whips any more. I mean that in no personal sense; it is just that I have long since lost any inhibitions against kicking over the traces if I think that the matter is of sufficient importance.
I notice that most of my right hon. and hon. Friends who have signed the Amendment, if not my right hon. Friend himself—I have not forgotten his earlier political antecedents, which were honourable—come from the extreme Right wing of the party. I should be sorry, therefore, if they were not given an opportunity to express dissent in their way, as I express it in mine.
A lot of the argument has concentrated on the question of qualifications for voting, and, naturally, a good deal of attention has been devoted to Mr. Speaker's Conference and its outcome. I have no qualifications to speak about Mr. Speaker's Conference. I have not followed much, even in the corridors, the discussions which have filtered through from that body, though, in passing, I


must say that I regard it as highly unsatisfactory that its proceedings must be secret. I hope that one consequence of this debate will be that there will be no such secrecy imposed in any future conference, for in that way it will save a great deal of trouble and acrimony.
I can claim, however, to have had some experience of elections rather different from that which most hon. Members have, it that I was the returning officer for a constituency in a developing country and was able to watch the way in which a large number of illiterate people were able to vote. Although the proportion of the total electorate taking part was necessarily smaller than one expects in this country or in most developed countries, nothing impressed me so much as the extraordinary keenness and interest of the voters and their willingness to put up with a great deal of inconvenience in order to register their vote.
There one was talking in the context of people over 21 years of age, but in this country we are, I suppose, for all our failings in education, a better educated people than almost any other in the world certainly than in any underdeveloped country, and it seems strange therefore to hear hon. Members expressing doubts about the ability of people between 18 and 21 years of age to weigh up the issues. One might just as easily put up an argument for saying that, because of diminished mental ability, persons over the age of 85 should be disfranchised, that there should be a senility disqualification. Just as cogent an argument could be advanced for disqualifying elderly voters. I should hesitate to say that in the presence of my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell), but I think that he is unrepresentative of his generation and there are, in fact, many of his age who for reasons of infirmity could not weigh up the situation, as well as many young people.
The central point, as my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West, said, is that the vote is a right. It is a defence agtinst tyranny. The vote is not always wisely used. One can think of some lamentable examples where people in other countries have used their franchise recklessly, putting into office parties and Governments which have then proceeded to establish dictatorship. But I do not believe that that is a problem which any-

one would seriously regard as within the bounds of possibility in this country. Whatever our differences of opinion, and however wide those differences may be across the parties—my own view is that they are not nearly wide enough between the two Front Benches at this time —this is a politically mature country by almost any standards one cares to apply.
I feel that that in itself should be a sufficient argument for extending the franchise, even without the recommendations of the Latey Committee which, by necessary inference at least, have strengthened the argument in favour of a wider franchise.
I think that I should, at least in part, accept the logic of what the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) said when he made a rather frivolous intervention in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West. I can conceive of a situation coming in a few years, with education more extensive, when we might lower the age of voting further. The vote at 18 is no more sacrosanct than the vote at 21. I do not suppose that one can envisage it going much lower, but there is an analogy here with the talk there once was about the times in which certain distances could be run. Before the first four-minute mile, it seemed impossible for a man to do it, yet it has been done many times since. I do not press the analogy further, but I do not accept that those who hold up their hands in horror at the lowering of the voting to 18 and regard as utterly unbelievable the thought that it could go even lower, are likely to prove right in the end. We may yet, in years to come, see the voting age lowered further.
If one accepts the argument—it seems to command a fair measure of support on both sides—that a decision to marry is for the individual a more important decision than a decision to vote, one should remember that one has for years had the right to marry, subject to consent, at the age of 16. The idea of further lowering the voting age is not, therefore, as preposterous as some may incline to think.
I am glad that the Government have taken the stand which they have. I do not often find myself able to give them wholehearted support nowadays. It is nice to see them doing something robustly radical for a change, and, as a reward, I


promise them that they will have my support in the Lobby tonight.

Mr. Onslow: That promise must have given the Government tremendous heart. The Chief Whip probably feels that the rock of ages has been removed from his shoulders and he can cease to worry about how to hold his party together.
I was a member of Mr. Speaker's Conference. I give one undertaking: I shall refer to it in my brief speech as little as possible, believing that the Committee has heard as much as it wants about the Conference's affairs.
In the debate so far, many of the advocates of change have said that those of us who oppose it can produce no evidence to support our view. They misjudge us in this. They are much more open to the argument that they who advocate change have even less evidence to offer. When we consider such background as the proposal has, it is extraordinary how little research, documentation, study and debate there has been in the public domain. What scant evidence there is to rely on the proposition that the voting age should be changed and, as the Government would have it, changed to 18!
Those of us who were concerned with the question have one advantage, that over a period of time we were bound to turn our minds to it and make some study of it. My study, through contacts with young people, confirmed the view I have heard expressed many times today, that there is no demand for change. Whenever I asked young people in the age group 18 to 21 for their opinion, I found that, broadly speaking, there was a majority against an enfranchisement. When I asked young people in the age group 21 to 24 whether they felt that three years earlier they were as politically mature as they now considered right in order to exercise the franchise, the majority was even more significantly against enfranchisement. I find that evidence as near to the truth of the matter as anything. I have heard nothing today to suggest that the contrary is true.
My hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Dudley Smith) said in our debate on Second Reading on 18th November:
Probably most people between the ages 18 and 21 would agree that it is a good idea

to have a Parliamentary vote."—[Official. Report, 18th November, 1968; Vol. 773, c. 990.]
I not only doubt that that is a probability but also whether, if he went into the question in more depth, he himself would find it a probability.
My second point is that no evidence of need has been submitted to us. To take a slight point first: some hon. Members might argue that the proposal was in the Labour Party Manifesto, and therefore that there must be a need to do something about it. I have never understood—and even the right hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) has been unable to explain to me—how this undertaking got into the Labour Party manifesto. I have a suspicion that somebody interested in the matter, perhaps researching away for years in a dusty room in Transport House, suddenly thought, "Here is my chance of immortality. I will slip this into the Labour Party manifesto. Nobody ever reads it. Nobody will notice." Once upon a time there was a celebrated, and perhaps apocryphal, case of a long and dreary Bill going through the House, into which the clerk of the promoting body, being unable to get himself divorced in any other way, inserted the words, "and the town clerk's marriage is hereby dissolved." It is said that the Bill duly went through the House and the town clerk got his divorce.

Mr. T. L. Iremonger: In that famous case the marriage of every subsequent town clerk in the town concerned was also dissolved.

Mr. Onslow: I had better not inquire of my hon. Friend, who knows so much about this, which town it was.
In this case the author was rather mistaken. He should have known then, and must know now, that not everything in the Labour Party manifesto gets done. The hon. Member for Reading (Mr. John Lee) was overjoyed that for once in a way something in a Labour Party manifesto was being done by a Labour Government. That was what gladdens his heart and will lead him so willingly to the Lobby. Can he think of nothing else to gratify himself with? There must be something. Why must it be votes at 18? Is there nothing else? Apparently, there is not. At least, the hon. Gentleman


cannot tell me. The argument of need on this basis is specious in the extreme.
7.15 p.m.
The same arguments have been put in a different way by the Secretary of State for Scotland, whom we are so sorry not to see with us now. In our debate of 14th October, he said:
We must accept the earlier maturity of our young people. We must accept that they are anxious to participate.
All right. If he says that we must, perhaps we must. But then he added:
We should try giving them responsibility and when we give them responsibility by participating in elections, that will have an effect on them."—[Official Report, 14th October, 1968: Vol. 770, c. 162.]
Here is a case for need put with the urbanity, wit, good humour and honeyed tones for which we all know and love the right hon. Gentleman. But his argument, not for the first time, nor, I dare say, for the last, carries within it an enormous fallacy. The right hon. Gentleman supposes that enfranchisement conveys responsibility. There is no guarantee of it. It gives power of a kind which may or may not be exercised responsibly. But there is no guarantee that giving the franchise endows the enfranchised with responsibility, nor is there any evidence for it.
But he still argues that there is a need, because by enfranchising those people we shall give them responsibility, we shall enable them to participate. Participation is all the rage. In a very revealing passage in a speech at this year's Labour Party conference, the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. George Brown) spelt out a similar view. He said:
We must make people feel they are participating.
Here again, there is a terrible flaw, because people do not want to feel that they are participating; they want to participate. They want the substance, not the shadow. Here we have the shadow of participation, the illusion of responsibility.
If he argues there is a need to give these to the age-group between 18 and 21, I would reply that there are plenty of people in this country who want to participate, who are not allowed responsibility, and they extend over the whole age range of the population.
I do not believe that the right hon. Gentleman's argument is any less fallacious than many of his others. Is it supposed that by enfranchising that age group we should somehow lessen the number of demonstrators in the streets of London? Is it supposed that the age group 18 to 21 would study at home, and that the demonstrating body would be made up of under-18s and over-21s? The over-21s—those who are British nationals, and no doubt there are some in that category—have the vote already. The under–18s perhaps think that they are going to a football match, but if they are participating I doubt whether many of them know what they are participating in, and I doubt whether on reaching the age of 18 and acquiring the right to vote they would automatically feel themselves so responsible, so weighed down by the new power on their shoulders, that they would opt out of demonstrations.
On the subject of demonstrations, how many times have we seen even a small corner of Trafalgar Square filled by people demonstrating for votes at 18? Very few.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Norman Buchan): We have all been waiting with great patience to hear the fallacy exposed, and we have not heard it yet. Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that to demonstrate equals irresponsibility, and that not to demonstrate equals responsibility? Is that really what he is suggesting?

Mr. Onslow: I am not trying to suggest that. It may help the hon. Gentleman if he reads what I have said—

Mr. Mendelson: It is unintelligible.

Mr. Onslow: —in Hansard, because it would take too long to explain to him. But other hon. Members have taken the point I am trying to make. The fact that he is not one of them is not my fault.
Another argument that is advanced for lowering the age to 18 is the imagined need for consistency. The hon. Member for Woolwich, West told us that what had convinced him that 18 was the right age was that this was the age of liability for service. It is the old argument, "Old enough to fight, old enough to vote" This is as bogus as it is outdated. Even those who base themselves on it in the cause of consistency may like to consider


the facts in relation to the age at which Servicemen, at this time and in recent years, have been thought old enough to go overseas to serve, and so possibly to fight for their country.
I recently asked for some figures on this from the Ministry of Defence. They told me that Royal Marines in operational commando units are not drafted overseas below the age of 17½. The selection of Wren ratings for overseas service has always been limited initially to those over the age of 21, although those over the age of 18 may volunteer with the consent of their next of kin. The minimum age for Army service in Europe is 17 years three months and in other theatres 17 years six months. So there are considerable inconsistencies even in the age at which men and women are thought old enough to fight. In some cases, they are thought old enough to fight well before the age at which, according to the Government, they are now old enough to vote, the age of 18. So there is no consistency there. There is even the curious slant that Wrens are thought unable to look after themselves until the age of 21 and under that age have to acquire parental consent in order to volunteer for overseas service.
Another argument is that this is really a matter of no importance, that lowering the voting age will not make any difference and that 50 per cent. of the newly enfranchised will not vote while the others will split more or less equally between the major parties. That may be true, but it is no argument for lowering the voting age.
Similar to this is the argument that, anyway, there is a longish period between elections—and we all regret that—so that the average age at which new voters will go to the polls is about 21, and, since 21 is the age at which we are already giving the franchise, that is all right. This is just statistical sleight of hand.
One might as well argue that if the average age of all electors is now, say, 38, and one reduces the initial point to 18 years, this would only have the effect of reducing the average age to 34–and as 34 is the age of maturity by anyone's standard, what is wrong with that?

Mr. Mendelson: This is absurd.

Mr. Onslow: It is absurd, as the hon. Gentleman is quick to note. I put it as a smaller absurdity to show up the larger absurdity with which it is analogous.

Mr. Robert Cooke: Before going on to the other absurdities in the Bill, will my hon. Friend draw attention to the provision in Clause 1 which says that a person will be able to vote if he reaches voting age on polling day and to the new procedure envisaged whereby persons will not be deprived of their votes because they have just come on to the register?

Mr. Onslow: That new procedure is to be welcomed. Indeed, it is one of the few things in the Clause to be welcomed. However, the point my hon. Friend has made is true. Many people who will be able to exercise their votes will not be at the happy average of 21 for new voters but will be 18 years old on polling day. We have to talk about the 18-year-olds in this context.
I am not so worried as some of my hon. Friends about pressures to which new electors may be subjected, but I am concerned about the pressures which we in this House are subjected to by the situation which faces us. Hon. Members opposite are being whipped tonight —and on that issue I share the forthright views expressed by some of them in the debate. But the hon. Member for Penistone developed a different, much more dangerous and much less likeable argument when he accused my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) of being afraid of the young voters.

Mr. Mendelson: Mr. Mendelson indicated assent.

Mr. Onslow: That accusation could better be levelled at hon. Members opposite in the present situation. But the implication of what the hon. Gentleman said was, apparently, that those who disagree with him are doing so only because they are afraid of the voters.

Mr. Mendelson: I said that the philosophy behind the speech of the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) was the traditional distrust of the electors which has always been a characteristic of the Conservative Party—and I repeat that statement.

Mr. Onslow: If the hon. Gentleman looks carefully at his views in print, I think he will find that he said what I have quoted him as saying, and the implications of what he said are profoundly undemocratic. It is an attempt, in what I understand to be police court parlance, to "put the frighteners in".

Mr. Stephen Hastings: The easiest way for hon. Members opposite to prove the point of that accusation is to hold a General Election.

Mr. Onslow: The prospect of a General Election is the ultimate frightener to the hon. Member for Penistone.
We are talking in this context about pressures upon Members of Parliament in considering the issue. The hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) says, "You are afraid of the young voters. You are determined that they shall not get the vote." This is a subtle—no, not a subtle but a deliberate and blatant attempt to warp our judgment.

Mr. Mendelson: Mr. Mendelson,indicated dissent.

Mr. Onslow: The hon. Gentleman should not shake his head like that because the implication, put into terms of the hustiigs, is, "If you do not support votes at 18 you are not 'with it'. You are past it."

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: Mr. Leslie Huckfield indicated assent.

Mr. Onslow: The hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Huckfield) nods. Well, I will tell him. Since 1964, we have seen many examples of instant government. One thing is worse—"groovy" government. We are all too likely to see that "groovy baby", the Prime Minister, determined to get more and more "with it" as the time of the next election approaches.

Mr. Huckfield: Mr. Huckfield rose—

Mr. Onslow: I am sure that the House wishes me to reach my peroration. [Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."] No doubt, the hon. Gentleman will be able to retaliate, if he is called, and I will reach my peroration all the sooner if he will stop gesticulating at me in that peremptory way.
I would rather be reactionary and right than "trendy" and wrong—and there are

plenty of "trendy" people on the Government Front Bench. I have heard the evidence and have considered it. None of it suggests to me that 18 is the right age I believe that 20 is the right age and I shall vote accordingly.

[Mr. SYDNEY IRVING in the Chair]

7.30.p.m.

Mr. J. Idwal Jones: I was a member of Mr. Speaker's Conference from the beginning to the end and I attended every meeting. My right hon. and hon. Friends who were my colleagues will know that I had misgivings from the very beginning about reducing the age of voting to 18. I do not view this problem from a party political angle. It was not up to me to decide whether the voting age should be reduced for the sake of the party of which I am a member. That is why I greatly regret hearing so much today about Scottish and Welsh nationalism. They have nothing to do with the problem with which we are involved.
I am well aware of the excellent work done in our schools in the teaching of civics and social studies. Most schools today devote part of their timetables to social and civic studies. Boys in our grammar schools today are much better informed about these things than we were when we were in school. But to be informed about civic matters is quite differentfrom bringing a mature judgment to political issues and it is that difference which is giving me some trouble. Knowledge is one thing; maturity of judgment is another.
Knowledge can be acquired, and it is the function of our education system to provide knowledge and information. Maturity of judgment is a matter of growth. but one does not grow more mature throughout one's life. When a man is 25, he is as mature in his judgment as he ever will be, and that is the point which I am trying to make now. Maturity of judgment is a matter of growth and information and knowledge do not necessarily promote maturity, although they add to its richness when maturity is reached.
Are we sure that our youth is enthusiastic about having the vote at 18? Some hon. Members have spoken of this today and have referred to the struggle by


women to get the vote in years gone by. remember speaking to a group of young people aged between 15 and 20. Some were in grammar schools and some were in university colleges. They were discussing political questions. They were a group of young people assembled together because they were deeply interested in politics. I addressed them for half an pour or so, and there was a discussion at the end.
Without any prompting on my part, the issue of the vote at 18 became part of the discussion. As I was a member of Mr. Speaker's Conference at the time, I took no part and made no suggestions, but I told these young people that they should think about the matter carefully and then vote upon it Of the 25 or so in the group, at the end of the discussion three voted for and the remainder against having the vote at 18. That was an eye-opener for me. From then on I took advantage of meetings with groups of young people to ask similar questions and, as I have said elsewhere, it has become my firm conviction that our young people have not yet expressed an intense desire to have the vote at 18. That is my limited experience. All experience is limited, and there is not an hon. Member in the Chamber tonight whose experience is not limited.
It is said that youths get married at 18 in greater numbers today than used to he the case generations ago. Whether that is a good thing we will have to wait for the verdict of time. One would want to know the percentage of broken marriages entered into at too early an age, which is an important consideration. These young people apparently enter into a state of matrimony and look after households and so on, and so it seems only right that the age of majority should be reduced to 18 in accordance with this trend in society. But does that mean that the voting age should also be reduced for the same purpose? We are also told that men are liable to be called to serve their country and even to die for their country at the age of 18. I find this argument difficult to counter. It was true in the First World War and in the Second World War. But the two arguments are not relevant In any case, it is not to the honour of any country to expect young

men of 18 to die for it, and that is why I stress that this argument is irrelevant.
My conclusion is simple. It is the view which I expressed in Mr. Speaker's Conference. As the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) will know, in Wales we have an expression, Y wal ddi-adlam. I know that the hon. and learned Gentleman will have understood me but, for the sake of other hon. Members, I may say that it means, "The wall that once you have gone over it, you cannot leap back". Once taken, the decision to reduce the voting age to 18 will be irrevocable. I do not want the age to remain at 21 and I wanted to reduce it to 20, leaving it to future conferences, in the light of experience. if necessary to reduce it still further, because the British Constitution cannot go very far wrong if it moves from experience to experience.

Dame Irene Ward: I have listened with great interest to a large part of the debate on this very important matter and I can well understand the same kind of debate taking place when Mr. Baldwin decided to give the "flappers" the vote. It is exactly the same argument, but I am glad to say that in the long run Mr. Baldwin triumphed and the flapper got the vote.
I shall certainly vote for votes at 18. I had the unique experience of being allowed to stand for Parliament when, though I was defeated, I might have been elected and allowed to take my seat at a time when by law I did not have the right to vote. If one can have anything more ridiculous than that I cannot possibly imagine what it is.
I was defeated, so I did not take my seat at a time when I was not entitled to vote. To go through the whole process again, all the arguments made when Mr. Baldwin wanted to introduce the flapper vote, to have that all over again fills me with despair. I was interested that so many of my Parliamentary colleagues have argued that we ought not to say that one should not be deprived of the vote but at the same time he expected in time of war to fight for one's country. This view must be outmoded now among my Parliamentary colleagues. I feel very strongly on this.
I suppose that is because I have been through two world wars. I certainly


think that people who were called up and had to fight for their country should at least have been allowed the right to take part in voting on policies which can affect, as we see it, either peace or war. Having lived a very long time and heard so many arguments in the past which are being brought forward now, I just wanted to say that I am delighted that this Government, which I oppose so wholeheartedly, at least thinks that we ought to be entitled to vote at 18.
I have great confidence in the young, and if people do not want to vote they do not need to. We ought not to "hijack" people into voting. The only point put forward which merits some thought is that about the possible buildup of pressures. But most people at the age of 18 have their parents to offer, at any rate, guidance and advice, and I do not therefore think that there is a very great deal in the suggestion that pressures may build up. They always will do so. With a new franchise Bill, containing some good and some bad points, finding its way on to the Statute Book, I am delighted to have the opportunity of voting for the young so that they may have the right to exercise the vote at 18. That is all I wanted to say on the matter.

Mr. Tony Gardner: Despite the somewhat awesome prospect of joining the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) in the Division Lobby this evening, I should like to oppose the Amendment moved by my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss). There has been a great deal of arrogance in the debate this evening. Time and again hon. Members have got up and claimed to speak on behalf of young people. I have spent most of my working life with young people. Before I came to this House I was secretary of one of the national voluntary youth organisations and since the age of 16 I have been involved with political youth organisations. I was the national officer for a political students' movement and I was president of the students' union, but I certainly would not have the arrogance this evening to claim to speak on behalf of young people.
I wish that we would simply confess that we do not know what the view of young people are on the subject of votes at 18. There has been a good deal of

discussion, but precious little evidence. We had the discussion about what Mr. Speaker's Conference said, but there was no real evidence then, because we are not entitled to see the evidence. All that I got out of the exchanges between hon. Gentlemen opposite and my hon. Friends was that someone, at some stage, said something to someone else. I was not clear what that was. There is no evidence in this direction.

Mr. Peter Mahon: Would my hon. Friend not agree that since all Members of Parliament have been young once they are entitled to consider the position of the young?

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Gardner: I was coming to that. It seems that the only basis on which we can make any personal judgments about what young people think is the basis of our own experiences. We are all entitled to remember our youth and to remember what we felt at the age of 18, to remember how mature or immature we were then, and to make purely subjective arguments on that basis. This is fair enough, but what is not fair is to quote doubtful evidence. The only hard evidence available to us is that taken by the Latey Committee.
Certainly in other matters that seems to point towards the need to lower the age of responsibility to 18. I fully accept that this is not an ipso facto argument for lowering the voting age to 18, and those of my hon. Friends who claim this are going a bit too far. In moving his. Amendment my right hon. Friend made the charge to which the hon. Lady has referred, that no one under 21 wants to vote. As I said on the Second Reading debate, when looking through the debates of the 1917 Representation of the People Act, exactly the same argument was used about women—that they did not want it.
This is not evidence, and there is no evidence of what young people want. I am sorry that he is not here, because the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) said that young people apparently did not know very much about what was going on in local government. All I know is that when I have my regular surgeries 90 per cent. of the problems which my constituents bring to me ought to be taken to local councillors, and people


simply do not know this. They do not know that the local councillor is responsible for housing, not me.
One cannot take evidence from young people's views on local government. One of the problems of local government is that far too few people know very much about what is going on. Again, the hon. Member for Ormskirk gave us what he called evidence about a poll taken—I was not quite clear where this organisation was—by a Young Conservative organisation. Fair enough, it has had a poll. Young Conservatives, like other Conservative organisations, take some rather strange decisions on occasions. From memory I believe that the Young Conservative organisation spans the ages from 16 to 35, and I should like to know how many of those people who took part in the poll were in the relevant age group, and how many voted against this because they were satisfied that they had the francise while others did not. Even after a few short years one can get very out of touch.
It has been argued that it is necessary to have experience, and this is a serious and important argument with which we should deal. Generally I accept this view. I have always taken the view that it would be a healthy thing if young people could do a few years' hard work after university or college. It is no good quoting this argument about experience if we are prepared to accept the situation in which a good many people aged 21 or over have no experience of life. What experience of real life has a doctor after a five or seven-year training period? He leaves his grammar or comprehensive school at the age of 18 and spends his years up to 22 or 23 in a college or university. He cannot, therefore, have any experience of everyday life or of the problems of bringing up a family and making a living. If we take the argument to its logical conclusion, we should raise the voting age. If one accepts that argument, based on experience, that is what we should do.
Perhaps it could be suggested—and there is a good valid argument for suggesting it—that the time that one reaches maturity is when one has a family and family responsibilities. It may be 18 or 19 years of age, or it may be 25 years of age. Would we be in favour of raising

the voting age to 25, and on what basis—for the first, second or third child? One could find all sorts of excuses for refusing to give people the franchise.
I will not pursue the point about those unfortunate people, some old and some not so old, who are not capable of taking rational decisions. If we are talking about political maturity, there is plenty of evidence in reputable opinion polls that most people over the age of 60 are almost incapable of changing their political views and that they vote out of pure blind prejudice. They have voted Tory or Socialist all their lives and they will not change.

Mr. S. O. Davies: Steady on.

Mr. Gardner: I am sure that my hon. Friend does not come in this category. I am sure that he is in the category known as "statistical error".

Mr. Davies: Does my hon. Friend wish us to believe that when he reaches 60 life will have gone and his mental processes will have been fossilised?

Mr. Gardner: I hope that, like my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes), I shall be one of the exceptions and that I shall have the wit, humour and willingness to change my mind just as he and my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. S. O. Davies) have.
The argument has been advanced that young people are not capable of making mature judgments. Once we get involved in this argument, we can take it to an absurd point. It has been suggested that young people have not the right to contribute to political decisions because they do not accept responsibility. I am sure that the Opposition, when we come to that part of the Bill dealing with the local government franchise, will argue very powerfully that there should be no taxation without representation. I do not necessarily agree with them. If they are to advance that argument, then hon. Members opposite who are opposed to votes at 18 had better be careful. If we were to look at the figures for consumer spending among people between the ages of 18 and 21, we should find that this was a sphere in which the Government collected a great deal of taxation. In


that respect alone the young people are contributing to our national budget and economy.
We should not make up our minds on the basis of how young people may or may not vote. I do not know how they will vole. I have seen all sorts of surveys into this matter, and they merely serve to confuse me. It is true that, on the whole, young people tend to rebel against the Establishment. At one time the Gallup Poll figures showed that they disliked the Conservative Party intensely. I am sure that now that we are in office the Gallup Poll would show a similar feeling about the present Establishment. This does not worry me. It is healthy for Governments that young people should show a little disrespect for the Establishment as such.
I turn to the argument concerning nationalists. Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell), I am frightened about the growth of nationalism. I agree with him completely that this is a deplorable growth in a world which should be coming closer together. But I am not sure that we should say that young people should not have the vote at 18 because they may decide to vote nationalist. Is it not a good reason for us looking at our own policies and views about Scotland and Wales? If young people reject our views or those of right hon. and hon. Members opposite, perhaps we should start considering them again. There is something which is taking people into the nationalist camp in Scotland and Wales. I do not want them to be in that camp and we should start doing something about bringing them back.
Most of these argument are inconclusive. Nobody can claim that there is a measurement for political maturity and that there is a certain length of experience. We cannot claim to know what young people want. There is a much better basis on which we should make up their minds. We should consider for a moment what the vote is for and what we mean by democracy. Some hon. Members opposite spoke about the vote being a privilege. I resent this. It rather lets the cat out of the bag. I remember my father saying to me, "You are privileged because you have a job. You are privileged to walk across someone else's land".

Mr. Mendelson: That is the Opposition's view.

Mr. Gardner: It may be their right. I reject the idea that the vote is a privilege. It may be a right, but I would not even stand on that.
The classic argument for democracy—and I tried to make this point on Second Reading—is that the vote is important because it makes the governors consider the interests of the governed. This was the real argument for votes for women. The argument was not whether women were more or less intelligent or whether they did or did not want the vote. The argument was that unless women had the vote Governments of men were not likely to consider their interests. If it had not been for the female franchise, would there have been concern for children and children's legislation? Would there have been the demand for family allowances? Would there be insistence on food subsidies if there were no mothers in the House who knew all about food subsidies? Would there have been the demand for better health and nursery schools? I doubt it very much if it were left solely to us men to make such decisions on behalf of our families.
The result of giving the franchise to women was not to make women as political animals any happier but to make the Government better because they considered women. The other interesting thing about women's franchise is that it did not result in bright young things or pop idols securing election to the House. The flappers did not flood into the House when they got the vote. In the main, women carried on voting for men. The same thing will happen among young people. They will tend to vote for Members of Parliament not unlike those we have today, but the difference will be that those Members will have to concern themselves with what young people want.
The argument for votes at 18 is not a case of the age of 18 against the age of 21 but simply that young people play a much greater part in our society in terms of the work that they do, the taxes which they pay and the way in which they participate and try to understand what is going on. There is no particular age for this. As my hon. Friend the Member for Reading (Mr. John Lee) said, we are taking a quite modest step


in the right direction. I do not believe that we can decide this matter on logic or on hard evidence. We can merely make subjective judgments. My subjective judgment is that carrying the franchise into law at 18 will make for a better system of local and Parliamentary Government.

Mr. Iremonger: I am in favour of lowering the voting age to 18, and I shall vote accordingly. I should like modestly to urge the Committee to resist this Amendment and, if it is not out of order, to suggest in passing that it should vote for the Clause.
I found it very difficult to decide what was right about this matter. Having decided, I still find it very difficult to justify, both in general, and, in particular, why, if we are to lower the voting age, it should be to 18. I find it difficult to justify lowering the voting age because I am sure that, as the hon. Member for Wrexham (Mr. J. Idwal Jones) said, the great majority of those who will be affected positively do not want this vote and are certainly not particularly enthusiastic about it. Although it would not and should not influence me unduly, this is most certainly true of Young Conservatives. They have made this positively clear in motions which they have passed in national conferences.
8.0 p.m.
The second reason why I find it difficult to justify is that, whatever may be the view of those young voters who will be affected, the proposal excites great antagonism among the old, and the older the person the greater the antagonism.
I am also embarrassed in justifying it by the antagonism to the proposals of Conservatives who fear that this will bring an avalanche of disagreeable Labour votes from disagreeable young voters.
To deal with the last point first—the fear that this will unduly benefit the Labour Party—I do not think that this is a valid objection, much as I would deplore it if I thought that it would happen. If the ideas of franchise, of representation, of democracy, whatever we may mean by that, and of government by consent of the governed are good ideas, they are good ideas not because the Conservatives win or Labour

wins, but because they are good ideas. Therefore we should not be over-concerned to examine the question of whether A or B will win.
It is, nevertheless, interesting to notice the result of a poll on the effects which this will have on the fortunes of the parties; not, as I say, that it is a valid argument in favour, but it may influence the view of many people. In the age group of 18 to 21, 90 per cent. are of the same political party as their parents; of them, 80 per cent. of Conservatives will vote and 20 per cent. will not. Of them, again, 60 per cent. of Labour supporters will vote and 40 per cent. will not. Of the 10 per cent. who take the opposite political view to their parents. 7½per cent. are rebels against Conservative parents and 2½per cent. are rebels against Labour parents. The rebels against their parents will vote 100 per cent.
If this is applied to the General Election there will be, if anything, a slight Conservative advantage, but that should neither commend the lowering of the voting age to Conservatives nor tell against it in the judgment of Labour supporters. Least of all should it either commend or tell against it in the judgment of the Committee. The duty of the Committee is to have regard to the electoral health of our democracy, to keep society reconciled to, and if possible enthusiastically in favour of, our form of government. The Bill is partly about that and we should therefore judge it on that criterion.

Miss J. M. Quennell: I may have missed the source of the poll from which my hon. Friend has quoted, but could he tell the House its origin?

Mr. Iremonger: I was just coming to that. This is the Iremonger poll. I took the view, as there are so many presumptuous, self-important ninnies going round asking stupid questions, why should not there be one more? But, seriously, I think that this is as near a shrewd and true assessment of what will happen as one is likely to get. This is not an entirely capricious or arbitrary assessment. I have asked a great many people, and this is the conclusion to which I have come, not unsupported by much less easily available second-hand evidence from others.
May I now turn to the first of my objections, that there is little enthusiasm for this among the people who will receive the franchise. The answer is brief and has been given already by many hon. Members. If they do not want it, they need not vote. This is not to be compulsory, like some people's ideas of repatriation. People are not to be dragged screaming into the polling booth and told to put a cross here or there. This is a voluntary scheme.
The second objection I named, that this is very much resented by the older generation of electors, is much more serious. The House, and the Committee now, should think long before consciously going against what would be accepted as the view of the great majority of the electorate. The electorate is suspicious of the House of Commons and of this Committee. Time and again one is told that one is not representing their view. They want to flog everyone, hang everyone and do a number of disagreeable things which they are sure would solve all the problems of humanity. They say, "You are elected to Parliament to do what we want, and you do the opposite". The Committee ought to be aware that we would be going against the strong misgivings of a great majority of the electorate. But I have or, occasion regretfully done what I thought was right and in the best interests of the people whom I represent, even if they did not agree with me at the time, or ever, and I will do so again.
I am convinced that the misgivings of the older sections of the electorate at the prospect of having voters of 18 to 21 voting at an election are unfounded. This is bound to be a purely subjective judgment, which cannot be proved one way or the other. Hon. Members have spoken of the "evidence" that was given to Mr. Speaker's Conference. What "evidence" can there possibly be on a matter of judgment? Each hon. Member must decide how he feels about this, and if others do not like it they will have to lump it.
The quality of the young people who will be invited to vote is a matter which comes into this. What are the values that one wants in the electorate? The idea of maturity is suggested. I do not know what is meant by maturity in this

context. I know what is meant by maturity in personal relations. I know that a mature youth is one who can relate to his brothers, sisters and parents. I know what a mature brother, father, mother or sister is. Maturity can be recognised in comparing the chronological and social age of people, but it cannot be established in respect of matters of political judgment. Political action is usually a combination of suppressed aggression, a degree of intellectual conviction and an element of pure blind prejudice. I do not think that the young will be very different from the old in that.
One has to ask oneself, rather, if the young are more brave or more cowardly than the old, more truthful or more deceitful and hypocritical than the old. more ruthless and unkind or more merciful than the old. Those are the qualities required, possibly spiced with a little intelligence and receptivity of mind.
Looking back on my own experience and that of my contemporaries when I was between the ages of 18 and 21, I should say, on the whole, that the young are about as cowardly as the old, just about as truthful as the old. Some are more merciful and others more merciless than the old. It breaks about even. But I must say that in my relationships with young people now, I find them less cowardly, less hypocritical and untruthful and less merciless than my contemporaries were; and, on the whole, I am sure that we would do very well for the older generation if we gave the benefit of the doubt to the younger ones. All this is a matter of judgment, hunch and prejudice. There is no question of providing it by evidence. One has to decide as one thinks best.
The real argument in favour of giving the vote to people of this age is that the only way to get the best out of people is to give them responsibility and opportunity and to ask them, "What shall we do?". That does not mean necessarily that one has to accept their answers, but one ought to ask them and be prepared to listen to their suggestions. It may be that they are right but, if they are wrong, one should be able to say, "I understand, but, with respect, there is this or that objection". If one can carry them with one, well and good. If not, at least one has not totally lost their respect.
The surest way of bringing the worst out in people is to say, "You do this. You shut up. This is how it is done. I will tell you. I am Big Daddy". That is the absolute denial of leadership and the sure way to forefeit their confidence. It is not necessary always to ask everyone's opinion and to be frightened of giving orders. In the Royal Navy, in which I had a little experience of real life, if one is to hoist a sea boat, one does not ask the crew how or when to do this or that. One says, "Hoist away". That is a command-and-obey situation. But if one is planning an operation or making a disposition about a ship or flotilla, even if one has a shrewd idea of the likely answer. it is better to say, "What do you think?". If one receives an unexpected reply which, on reflection, one feels is right, one should be prepared to be swayed by it. People under the age of 21 often have to submit to command-and-obey situations where it is only possible to say, "Right!You go there, and you do that, and do it pretty fast". When it comes to carrying their confidence in the larger issues of life, however, they should know that their views are being taken seriously. We in this House, as members of the older generation, should not be frightened of that.
The proposed enlargement of the franchise will. I am convinced, be a benign and powerful source of refreshment to the body politic. Because it will challenge to activity many who now sulk and sneer because they have no responsibility for the political life of the country. I believe they are people who could bring fine qualities of idealism, intelligence and concern to public life if demands were made upon them.
I see a lot of people about whom the Clause will legislate. At least once a year, I go to every grammar school in my constituency—with one exception where the headmaster has managed to keep me out, but I shall bowl him out this year. I cannot go to every secondary modern school, because that is not physically possible, but I go to every one that asks me, and a number of them do. I make one appeal to each school I visit. I tell them, "This is your country, your Parliament and your Government. I do not mind whether you join the Labour

Party or the Conservative Party, though I hope that you join the Conservative Party. But what I do hope will not happen is that you will stand on the sidelines and protest that politics is a dirty game and that you will have no part of it."
8.15 p.m.
I ask them to take part in public life and join a political party. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) will be glad to hear that I do not leave matter there. I say to them, "Each year, we will have a debate. I will move a motion of no confidence in Her Majesty's Government, and the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Arnold Shaw) will oppose it." That is right, because we want to have a proper political debate, but I do not care to say what I think about the Government without having someone there to answer for them.
That is the right way to involve the electors of the next generation—who, I hope, will vote at the next General Election—in their responsibilities for this Parliament. However, on one occasion when I went to debate against the Government at a grammar school, a number of revolutionary Socialist students honoured me by throwing paint over my car as a protest against I know not what. When I invited them—

Mr. Arnold Shaw: I remember the incident very well. While I do not condone the action, this is the first time that it has emerged that the lads who painted the car were revolutionary Socialist. There may be another reason why the hon. Gentleman's car was painted, and again I do not condone it, but it is a bit much to come to this august House and depict various of those lads as revolutionary Socialists. It gives them a title which they do not deserve.

Mr. Iremonger: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, but if he will be patient for a moment, I think that he will be with me. I said publicly to them, though I did not know their identities, that I hoped that they would come and talk to me. They did. They were not only revolutionary Socialists, as they told me—

Mr. Callaghan: They would not know what it meant.

Mr. Iremonger: The right hon. Gentleman is right. They did not know very precisely what it meant. After some discussion on the Terrace of this House, we came to the conclusion that both they and I were just bloody-minded anarchists. The hon. Member for Ilford, South can bear me out in that trivial reminiscence, because he saw them at the school, although he did not know who they were. The point is that they were very fine, thoughtful and sincere young men. I came to the conclusion that if I and this House and our country's institutions had lost their confidence, that was a condemnation of us and not of them.
I do not think that we need fear too much about the quality of person who will come into the electorate as a result of the Clause passing into law. What we have to fear much more is the qualities that we in this House and others of our generation bring to bear in our relationships with them.
The impression I have, from quite frequent and extensive contact with the people concerned in the Clause, is that there is a frightening degree of cynicism among them about Parliament and our institutions, but that it is really only a reflection of an idealism in their minds about what we should be and how our affairs should be conducted. I think also it is largely a reflection of their complete failure to understand how public affairs have to be managed. I had a strong impression of their remoteness and reluctance to take part in public life. They manifest a sense of shock and horror when I say that if they do not like it, it is up to them to make it better. They feel that this is something in which they ought not to be involved.
I have always come away from these meetings with a very strong sense of the penetrating and open-minded approach that they bring to political problems. Many of the most difficult questions, in the best sense, that I have ever had put to me, have been put in the senior forms of schools in my constituency by the people to whom I have been to speak. Of all the public meetings that I have addressed over the years, I think that I have had a dozen or so really penetrating questions that have made me start to think the thing out right from the beginning. and more than half have come

from people not only under 21, but under 18. Therefore, it is not a bad thing that they should be able to carry their inquisition to the hustings with a real role to play and a determination to vote one way or another.
Dr. Johnson said,
when a man knows he is to be hanged in a fortnight, it concentrates his mind wonderfully.
The knowledge that they will vote in a year or so will concentrate their interests on public life enormously.
Finally, the introduction of responsibility to the 18 to 21 generation will bring a little more realism into demonstration and protest. I say to my demonstrating and protesting students, "If this is the way you feel, you should put up a candidate for Parliament and vote for him or her. After all, if you lose your deposit, there ought to be 300 of you who can fork up 10s., or whatever it is, if your cause is worth standing for. Stand for Parliament. That is the place in which to protest. If, as you say, everybody mistrusts me, and mistrusts the hon. Member for Ilford, South, and mistrusts our respective opponents, and thinks that the whole thing is phoney and you would rather be represented by beautiful people, you should vote about it." But somehow this is not on.
I am sure that part of the reason is that, for a large proportion of the people who are demonstrating and protesting, the possibility of voting is six or seven years hence. Therefore, the possibility of it being closer at hand ought to bring a little more realism into the protest. The protesters either believe in majority government or they do not. If not, they believe in minority government. If they believe in minority government, they have to answer the question: which minority is to be the government and how is that to be decided? There is only one way of deciding which minority, among a number, shall govern, and that is by the sword and the gun. Therefore, there is much to be said for majority government. But if we are trying to regain the confidence of people who have lost confidence in majority government, we cannot go far wrong if we introduce them at the earliest possible moment to the processes of democracy which create consent and acceptance and proper evolutionary


change. Those processes are in danger of being forgotten and not handed on in their full vigour to the generation which will have to uphold them. I think that the Clause will be an instrument for handing on our processes and that it ought to be supported, and the Amendment rejected.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: The hon. Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Iremonger) has introduced a more philosophical note into the debate than was apparent at an earlier stage in our deliberations this afternoon. His speech was the more welcome for that.
What struck me as rather astonishing about the earlier part of the debate was the dogmatism of Members who supported 18 and 20 respectively and who appeared to find no difficulty in coming to a conclusion on the matter. The choice of the age at which people should be entitled to exercise the franchise is essentially difficult and arbitrary. For that reason, I found my task on Mr. Speaker's Conference more difficult than my task as a member of the Latey Committee which had to consider certain specific areas of the civic law.
I thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) injected into the debate an altogether unwelcome, vociferous and personal note of vituperative hostility. I submit that it was an effort to discredit the working of Mr. Speaker's Conference and to suggest that it had no relevance or to so diminish its relevance that we would discard its considerations. In this the hon. Member for Penistone naturally found some support from my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, because Mr. Speaker's Conference came to an overwhelming decision in favour of votes at 20, and this has to be explained away or at least discounted.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Penistone is not here—I understand the reason for his absence; this has been a long debate—because I suggest that he was upbraiding members of Mr. Speaker's Conference who had waited for Latey rejecting the relevance of Latey in considering the age for voting. He has come here tonight and said that we should reject the findings of Mr. Speaker's Con-

ference, whose report the Government were awaiting. It is clear, therefore, that Mr. Speaker's Conference has some relevance to our deliberations this evening. We can only conclude from the debates at Mr. Speaker's Conference that there was a vast majority in favour of the age of 20. We do not have the reasoning. We only have the voting. We have heard the views of individual members of that conference—hon. Members may feel that perhaps too many of them have spoken—and their views stand or fall by the weight of the arguments that have been adduced and not by the dignity or importance of the conference.
8.30 p.m.
This is an extremely difficult subject and there is nothing illogical in finding for 20 as opposed to 18, as Mr. Speaker's Conference did, albeit the Latey Committee made certain recommendations for changing the law in those spheres of the private law which it had to consider. Nevertheless, the Government have, on balance, made out a case for altering the law in regard to the franchise in a way which would bring the civic law into line with the general law on the age of majority.
I support them—and not because it is possible to determine even approximately at what age young people become mature for this civic function; I include all people within the wide age bracket 16 to 25–not least because youngsters have a different way of looking at public affairs. They bring into their consideration of great public issues a simple idealism which is enormously valuable. They concentrate their thoughts on the simple issues of war and peace, of the need to help members of the community who are inadequately provided for, of the need to assist the developing nations and of the need to inject into our public life a simple idealism. What these youngsters lack in experience they make up for by this quality.
There is no great pressure on Parliament to change the law in this respect. and this is indisputable. We are not seeing a situation comparable with that of the suffragettes seeking to win the vote. Nevertheless, if we can import into our public life the idealism of the young, in however small a measure, we will be serving our body politic well.

[Sir Beresford Craddock in the Chair]

Mr. Peter Emery: I will not detain the Committee, particularly since most of the arguments have already been well rehearsed. I intervene only to explain the way in which I shall be voting.
Much play has been made with the possibility of influence being brought to bear on young people. The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) did not deal with this aspect in his remarks, but he will appreciate that Mr Speaker's Conference and many others who have been commenting on this issue have taken it into account. The hon. Gentleman's speech, which paid particular attention to Mr. Speaker's Conference, was entirely relevant and useful until he began to predict that the Government had presented a case which could over-ride that of the conference. It was at that point that I parted company with him, because I do not believe that the Government have presented an argument strong enough to over-ride the views of Mr. Speaker's Conference.
It is not for that reason alone that I shall be casting my vote for the Amendment. I ask the Committee to consider the way in which political parties will begin to recruit people to their respective political faiths—to prepare and organise them—before the age at which they will be entitled to vote—

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Emery: Perhaps I may finish at least part of a point of view, and then if any hon. Members want to interject I will be delighted to give way.
I believe, on the whole, that if there is to be a vote at the age of 18, political parties will begin starting to recruit specifically from the age of 15 onwards. It is true that to some extent this is done now, but it is a very small extent. It is true also that some hon. Members such as my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Iremonger), and I myself, have spoken to sixth forms and have participaled in civic discussions with people at school, but that has not been the basic meat of politics as to all the exact reasons why people should take a certain political view or support a certain political party.
I honestly believe that it would be wrong and harmful to have either the Conservative Party or the Labour Party attempting to begin organising in schools persons of the age of 15 or 16.

Mr. Alan Lee Williams: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the only political party which attempts to recruit under the school leaving age is the Conservative Party, when it tries to recruit young children into the Young Briton movement?

Mr. Emery: That is neither a very new nor a very original interjection. I know that many political parties at many times have had major youth movements, and movements that have gone back much further than what some people would call the youth movement itself.
All I seek to suggest is that if the age is reduced to 18 there will be a much greater degree of political pressure during the last two or three years in school than anyone has ever seen before. I do not believe that that is good for our educational system. I do not believe that people who are having to take A levels and are worring about whether or not they will get into university want to be bothered—or necessarily ought to be bothered—by political parties attempting to recruit them because they will be going on the electoral register in another year.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North said, as I recall: "The fact that they are going to vote in a year or two will concentrate their minds wonderfully". Therefore, I say that this is an ever greater support to my argument. I do not necessarily believe that at the age of 15 or 16 we should, through the House of Commons, say that it is a good thing to concentrate the minds of these young people specifically on politics and upon the political organisation of parties. This major reason, which has not been widely discussed, makes me feel that a reduction to 18 years is neither advantageous nor necessarily right.
The point has already been made, more often than not by supporters of the vote at 18 that, after all, the choice would be left to the individual persons; that they could go on the register or not as they saw fit. Having at one time represented a highly marginal seat, I also know that political parties go to very great lengths


to ensure that people are on the register. One one occasion I defeated the present hon. Member for Reading (Mr. John Lee), and he defeated me later. When I defeated him by the massive majority of 10 votes, many people had many ideas where those 10 votes came from. I proceeded to organise people at the university in order to get them on the register in Reading, so that if the election came when the university was up—and there are many people over the age of 21 who still study only in the terminal time at universities—those people would be able to cast their votes for the Conservative Party. If there were any one specific thing which helped me in that Election it was a campaign to get a number of people at the university on to the electoral roll.
Political parties, particularly in marginal seats, go to very great lengths to ensure that people are on the register. I think this would be the case just as much when the voting age is reduced to 18 as it is with the age at 21. There will be this extra political influence put on to young people at the age of 17 because it is then that the influence will have to be brought to bear to ensure that they wish to be put on the register.

Mr. Michael English: Is the hon. Member aware that he has just confessed to a breach of the law? If he recollects the Oxford case on registration, he will know that a person at a university cannot be registered in the constituency because he is not resident in the constituency.

Mr. Emery: So far as I am aware those people use their home abode. As long as they choose that as their domicile I do not think there is anything illegal or incorrect in that selection by the individual.

Sir D. Renton: I think the criterion is where one has a place of residence. If one has a place of residence there one is entitled to be on the electoral roll and university lodgings are a place of residence.

The Temporary Chairman (Sir Beres-ford Craddock): I am reluctant to intervene, but we have to get back to the Amendment.

Mr. Emery: I am sorry, Sir Beresford, that I was slightly led off the Amendment, but I wanted to make certain that nothing I did was illegal or incorrect.
At the age of 17 a specific influence will be brought to bear on young people particularly in the case of marginal seats. There will not be much need for that in Honiton for probably there are more retired and older people there than in most constituencies in the country, but certainly it will be true of marginal seats.
These two arguments, in addition to those propounded by hon. Members who have spoken in support of the Amendment, are strong enough for me to think it right. Although one may be branded as out of step with the young, I think it right and proper to support the Amendment which would reduce the age to 20.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: It does not amaze me at all that most of the speeches against extension of the franchise to the lower age have come from hon. Members opposite. In our history most of the opposition to extension has come from the party opposite.
I was rather surprised, however, to hear one or two adamant speeches from hon. and right hon. Friends which I would have thought more suited to talking about extension of the franchise to the 40s. freeholder. Some of the things we have heard from hon. Members opposite would have been far more appropriate when talking of the potwalloper or rotten boroughs, Old Sarum. just a mound. Downton, which disappeared under the sea, and Grampound in Cornwall which disappeared when disqualified for corruption. Those were environments far more suited to the kind of speeches we have heard from both sides of the Committee against extension of the franchise.
8.45 p.m.
It does not hurt to remind ourselves that we are talking about the extension of the franchise to a very important group that so far does not have a voice in the Parliamentary process. It is because I think I can claim myself fairly close to that group that I want to make certain remarks about the extension of the franchise to 18-year-olds in preference to its extension to 20-year-olds. Many of today's 18-year-olds live a life completely independent and separate from their


parents. In many cases these are young people who have moved away from their parents' home and who have jobs and family responsibilities of their own. In many cases, to all intents and purposes they live their lives as a separate entity.
Most of the speeches against the extension of the franchise seem to assume that we are talking about young people who are living with their parents and who are still at school. The 18-year-olds today are the young apprentices, the young people who are trying to buy furniture and who have to get a guarantor to sign the hire-purchase contract, the young people who are trying to get mortgages, the young people who in many cases must stand completely on their own two financial feet.
In previous extensions of the franchise we were talking of a group who, somebody had discovered, was affected by a whole block of legislation. Somebody suddenly discovered that women were affected by a whole block of legislation. It is time that somebody discovered that 18-year-olds are affected by a tremendous block of legislation. These are the people who are already paying Income Tax, who are paying their National Health and National Insurance contributions, who, though I do not like this and do not support it, have in many cases to sign on the dole, and who in many cases are affected by legislation and trade agreements of the type which has been mentioned tonight. These young people should be given some say in the formulation of legislation which affects them so closely.
Over the past four or five years Parliament has talked a great deal about the reorganisation of secondary education. It has also done some damnable things in further and higher education. This, again, is a whole block of legislation which the House of Commons has passed and which Committees of the whole House have considered but in which no say has been given to young people, many of whom know much more about this subject than some hon. Members. Young people who are affected by all this legislation and discussion should be given some say. In my view, 20 is too late.
It has been contended that these young people do not want to participate and

that they have rejected the Parliamentary system completely. I must admit that I have noticed this. Time was when I used to be invited to attend colleges and universities and talk about one political party or the other. Nowadays if an invitation comes to me I am invited to go to a university to try to get undergraduates interested in the parliamentary system. This is the change which has come about. I maintain that it has come about because the young people concerned often cannot find a political party that suits them, but there is a good evidence to show that, when young people do find a political party which suits them, they join it. We have the instance in Britain of the Scottish Nationalists and Plaid Cymru. In the United States, there is the Peace and Freedom Party. These are parties which embrace young people, they are parties which express the sentiments of young people, and they represent the way through which young people long to participate.
If young people at 18 have not shown that they want to participate in the Parliamentary system by joining the established parties, they have in no uncertain terms shown that they want to change a great many things which are affected by what we say and do here. I am much encourage by the kind of expressions of controversy—to put it at its mildest and most neutral—which we have had from young people recently. At the least, they show that young people have a sense of concern and of curiosity. Young people want to do something about affairs on which they feel strongly. In many cases, the reason why they have rejected the existing political parties is that they are not confident that those parties will do anything about the matters on which they feel concern. When one considers the attitude of both sides of the House on isues like the Vietnam war, or the attitude of certain hon. Members on such questions as Rhodesian independence, can one blame them for forsaking the established party political system such as we have it now?
In my view, people of 18 above all, though this is true of people of 20 as well, have demonstrated that if they cannot find a political party which suits them through which they can participate, they certainly want to participate in the results of what our Parliamentary system does.
Many hon. Members on both sides have suggested that if the voting age is lowered to 18, we shall be talking to and appealing for the votes of young people who left school only two years before. But the average age of voting is 23 or 24 now; many young people—young adults as it is fashionable to call them—do not vote until they are 24 or 25. In many cases, therefore, the practical effect of introducing the vote at 18 will be that young people will be induced to vote for the first time at the age of 21. I am sure that that will be the effect on the average young voter at his first Parliamentary election.
The strongest point in favour of the change proposed by the Government is that, since the Second World War, this country and all countries of the western world have seen the development of a specifically teenage market. I do not say that one should, therefore, bring the voting age down to the "teeny-boppers" and all those who are affected by the teenage market, but it must be admitted even by hon. Members opposite, who always claim great experience of commercial affairs, that one of the biggest extensions of the market has been that into the teenage sector.
Young people nowadays are subjected to the commercial pressure which exhorts them to buy record players and records or to change their fashions every two weeks. If they can stand that sort of pressure they can stand the rather milder pressure exerted by political parties. I am not worried about the young people whom certain hon. Members during today's debate have called fragile or unable to stand up to pressure. I have no doubt that they can stand it. They have already shown that they can, and they will go on doing so.
I was not a member of Mr. Speaker's Conference, and I shall not dwell on that aspect of the matter. I think it suffices to say that, taking into account the average age of the members of the conference and the political connotations which the names evoke in one's mind, one need not be surprised—I do not care how they arrived at it—that they came out in favour of votes at 20. I should be a lot more convinced by Mr. Speaker's Conference had it included many more members of the 1964 intake, and particularly of the 1966 intake.

Mr. Houghton: Since hon. Members on Mr. Speaker's Conference were nominated by the Chief Whips on either side of the House, does my hon. Friend think that those of us who served on it were put there in the hope that we should come out against votes at 18? I find it difficult to understand what the political strategy was, if the appointments to Mr. Speaker's Conference seemed to predetermine its conclusions—only to have those conclusions thrown overboard the moment they were presented to the House.

Mr. Huckfield: I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend for that intervention, but he knows as well as I do that in certain ways in the House we have a seniority system second only to the kind that operates in the United States Senate. The fact that it takes hon. Members like myself—and this is no reflection on you, Sir Beresford—until quarter to nine to be called is a slight demonstration of this.

The Temporary Chairman (Sir Beresford Craddock): Order. I am sorry. I must ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw that remark, because it is a reflection on the Chair, which is not allowed.

Mr. Huckfield: Sir Beresford, if you had listened carefully—and I am not being disrespectful—I said that this was no reflection on yourself. I certainly mean no disrespect to the chairmanship of the Committee. I am merely lamenting that we have a rather rigid seniority system in the House.

The Temporary Chairman: Order. If it is any consolation to the hon. Gentleman, we all suffer from that, and have done so for many years.

Mr. Huckfield: I think that you will agree, Sir Beresford, that it affects some more than others.
Some hon. Members have said tonight that the proposal affects their constituents in various ways. We have heard about opinion polls. One was apparently taken among Young Conservatives in a certain Greater London constituency. I need say no more about that. One was supposed to be taken in a group of young people aged 18 to 21 in the Midlands. I represent a West Midlands constituency, and I have never heard of it. One was


allegedly taken in some kind of junior Hansard Society, which I think mainly comprised grammar school pupils. I should not say that the polls presented to us tonight could be said to be statistically random or in any way to represent a cross-section. [An Hon. Member: "Except the Iremonger one."] I would have referred to that, but I did not want to come under fire in the same way as I did five minutes ago.
I have yet to see a representative or random national opinion poll on votes at 18. Everybody has been saying that there is no evidence that young people want the vote. From the young people with whom I mix—I do not have to talk to them; I mix with them—I can say that many of my friends and constituents want to vote at the age of 18. One of my local newspapers did a random public opinion poll—I am sorry to say—and came to the conclusion that young people might not be all that interested in the political system and political parties, but they wanted the vote. Some were not prepared to wait until they were 20. They wanted the vote at the proposed age of 18. We have yet to have definite national statistical evidence to show that this is not the case. It has not been offered by hon. Members on both sides who have spoken tonight.
Since this is an issue which should cut across party lines, I regret that hon. Members on my side of the House will not be offered the opportunity of a free vote tonight. I shall vote against the Amendment, and I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will do the same. Since different age groups will obviously have different opinions on the question, and since people must make what is essentially a subjective judgment, they should be allowed to exercise the devotions and rights of their consciences. It is particularly regrettable that they should not be allowed to do so on this side of the House tonight.
But the strongest point is that we have a whole generation which is affected by a tremendous amount of legislation but as yet has no voice in the existing Parliamentary system. That generation, particularly those of it who are aged 18, wants a voice. I hope that votes at 18 will go a long way towards giving it to them.

9.0.p.m.

Miss Quennell: I hope that the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huckfield) will forgive me if I do not follow him at length in his argument. However, I would say to him that, although, as a new intake to the House of Commons, he had to wait until 8.45 p.m. to be called, I, who was a member of Mr. Speaker's Conference and have progressed up the ladder of seniority a little further than he in the service of the House, had to wait until 9 p.m. to be called. Such is the fairness of the Chair in its selection. As the hon. Gentleman progresses up the ladder of seniority, I assure him that, night after night, he will go home frustrated and furious, those great speeches which would have made a difference to the world consigned to the many wastepaper baskets in the House, which I think are provided for that purpose.
One finds oneself much in agreement with some parts of nearly every speech made. The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) wisely said that, in a matter like this, dogmatism cannot prevail and that it is something we should set aside. The hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Gardner) observed, also wisely, that there is no measurement of political maturity and that there cannot be, since it must be a subjective view for every one of us. He also said that enlargement of the franchise will produce, contrary to what so many hon. Members have said, roughly the same sort of House of Commons, because the voting habits of an enlarged electorate will produce roughly the same sort of Members of the House in much the same way as an enlarged electorate always has. I am sure that he is right.
Therefore, many of the expressions of fear uttered in the Committee do not really arise. My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Iremonger) said that there was great antagonism to this proposal among the old. That may be so in his type of constituency but in mine I have met nothing of that. Nevertheless, I intend to support the Amendment because what we are about to take is a step that will be irrevocable, and I would prefer to advance slowly, step by step, than to take a step that we cannot reverse.
Much has been said of Mr. Speaker's Conference, of the fact that it was not unanimous, and of the Latey Committee. Little has been said, except by accident, about the lack of unanimity in the Latey Committee. But the Committee is not supposed to be debating either of these reports. We are supposed to be considering the Bill. I have said that once the law is changed in this way, we cannot reverse it. We cannot deprive people of votes once we have given them the franchise. We can only extend it.
To remark that the suffragette movement is comparable with what we are discussing is fantastic. Extension of the votes to women came as a result of a long and arduous campaign by women. For my part—and I can speak only subjectively, as I say—I have had no evidence from young people in my constituency that they have any great urge to have the voting age altered. Not only have I received no letters from them, or any body in the constituency, but I have not been approached or questioned about it at any of the many public meetings which I have held.
Therefore, we should approach Clause I calmly and soberly. One of the things which we should also bear in mind is that Mr. Speaker's Conference took no evidence which is not available to the Committee. The complaints about inaccessibility to its minutes simply do not apply. I wonder what effect the availability of the minutes would have on hon. Members. Some time ago, I had to speak to a senior form of a school on the work of a Member of Parliament. I thought that one of the best illustrations I could give would be the big yellow sheets, which set out the Standing and other Committees of the House of Commons, to try to explain how the House operated, and I also took with me the big files of minutes of the two years which I have served on Mr. Speaker's Conference, and that weighed 10½lbs. Some hon. Members had the pleasure of serving for three years and if hon. Members wanted to have those minutes, they would get about 14 lbs. of paper which they would have to try to digest, and I do not think that that is a starter for anybody.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Does the hon. Lady mean fourteen pounds in money or weight?

Miss Quennell: I very much wish that service on the conference had produced anything in money. It produced paper and weight.
What is the right age of the suffrage? Should it be physical maturity? I think that that is utterly irrelevant. Height, weight and muscles would merely mean that the heavyweigh boxing champion of the world would have the best brain, and I think that perhaps that might be held to be a little questionable. No one can exercise his or her full responsibility until he or she has collected that intangible quality which is called judgment, which has nothing to do with party affiliations. Mental maturity or agility is not the same thing. Judgment is acquired only when a sufficient amount of time has elapsed for things to be seen in perspective, and to vote one needs to get things into political perspective.
A curious effect of the Clause as drafted, remembering that the constitutional life of our Parliament is five years, is that if the voting age is reduced to 18 years, anybody of that age will have been 13 when that Parliament was elected. Eighteen-year-olds would then vote only by remembering effectively one Parliament, that is to say, the latter part of that Parliament which comes into their memories. They will have to depend on the memories of their elders for the experience of earlier Parliaments. Paradoxically, therefore, the effect of this proposed change may well be to extend the electoral influence of the older age groups in the total electorate.
The question of what the age should be should be approached with care, without dogmatism and certainly without the impertinence of trying to ascribe political intentions to the new younger voters. I say to the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland that we must approach this without dogmatism. It is wiser to approach it step by step rather than by this somewhat extreme move which the Home Secretary is proposing. Once one has extended the age to 18 one cannot do anything else, one is stuck with it irrevocably. To a certain extent, whatever age is suggested must be arbitrary, but once the age is altered to 18 it is final, and cannot be altered later. If it is extended to 20 maybe it can be extended to 19 and then to 18. Certainly


once extended to 18 it cannot be taken away.
There is also the aspect of the burden which will be placed upon the electoral returning officers in all the counties. The Committee ought to be aware of the burden which it is putting on them. They will have to identify, and then enlarge the registers, by about 4 million people, if this Clause as it stands becomes law. It will place a lot of work and problems upon the shoulders of these people and their staffs.
This has been a very prolonged and interesting debate in which a great number of hon. Members have, quite rightly, participated. It is upon this Bill and the preceding Representation of the People Acts that have gone on to the Statute Book that the health of our electoral system and our democracy will prosper. Therefore, it behoves us to approach it calmly and soberly. Let us not burn our boats but give ourselves room to manœuvre later if that should prove to be an advantage.

Mr. Paul B. Rose: Earlier the hon. Member for Tyne-mouth (Dame Irene Ward) said that she had had a unique experience. I, too, had a unique experience, although I did not share it with the hon. Lady, and that was standing as a candidate in a municipal election at the age of 21 when I did not have the right to vote because I was a "Y" voter. Since then I have had some interest in this subject, although until I heard the speech of the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) I had no intention of entering the debate.
He made a characteristically incoherent speech, a characteristically bitter speech, but it was one of those bitter speeches which failed to bite. When I was a candidate, before 1964, I called upon 500 "Y" voters in my constituency. What impressed me most was that almost every one said, "We are interested in politics but we have never considered it seriously, because we did not have the right to vote. It is only now that we are taking a very serious interest and examining the programmes of the political parties." The point that the hon. Member for Woking missed was that by giving people the vote one encourages them to adopt a more responsible attitude, one gives them an incentive to take part in civic affairs, to take a serious interest in such things.
Under our voting system the average age at which a young person votes for the first time in a Parliamentary election is likely to be between the ages of 23 and 24. Many of them will not vote until they are 25 or 26. This has to be considered in relation to reducing the age to 18. The other thing that has always impressed me about young people is their unselfish attitude towards politics. They were the most unselfish of all the people I called on during the election campaign. Out of the 10,000 people whom I called upon, who were on the electoral register, only one raised a foreign affairs issue, and the great majority did not raise any issue at all. These young people were concerned about moral issues, not about their own petty needs, but about Vietnam, Oxfam and helping people who were starving, who had never eaten a square meal in their lives. They were concerned at the cancer of racialism which is increasing to some extent in this country.
9.15 p.m.
It is not young people who are responsible for many of the difficulties in which we find ourselves and many of the traumatic experiences of the world in recent years. But, above all, they are orientated, not to the past, but to the future and therefore have a great deal to contribute. I was much impressed by the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Gardner), who said that women's interests are looked after in the House because women have the vote and, therefore, that young people's interests will be looked after if young people have the vote. Their interests consist of the kind of society and quality of life which they will be demanding in future but which was beyond the realm of credibility for some of the older generation. They will be concerned about raising not only the material standard of living but the quality of life. This is an added factor which will contribute to a better society.
My hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) was right when he said that some hon. Members opposite are afraid of giving young people the vote. He is right because they know that this will mean that they will take a more intelligent interest in politics and a more active interest in political argument. I reject the argument of the hon. Member for Woking, who says that


young people do not want the vote. No evidence has been adduced as to whether the majority of them do or do not want the vote. All that we know is that some of them certainly want the vote. This is not an argument, because there must have been many ladies during the era of the suffragettes who did not want votes for women. Many slaves did not want to be freed because they were conditioned to an acceptance of their situation and it did not occur to them to try to get out of it.
The other argument which the hon. Member for Woking adduced was that if we ask young people between the ages of 21 and 24 to look back, they will admit that they were not mature at 18 to 21 years of age. But if any hon. Member looks back only a few years he will consider that at that time he was not as mature as he is now. Therefore, this is not a valid argument because we all feel that we are now much more mature. Sometimes the reverse is the case, because some of us become cynical and jaded about what we see in politics. Perhaps the idealism and freshness of some young people is something that we should try occasionally to emulate.
There is the classic argument that if one is old enough to fight at 18 one is old enough to vote. This is perhaps a hackneyed argument. But it is interesting that my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Mr. J. Idwal Jones), who spoke against lowering the voting age, said that he found it very difficult to deal with this argument. It may be hackneyed but it is a very strong argument. The only way he dealt with this argument was to say that it is not to the honour of a country to expert him to die for his country at 18 but if that is so it is even less to the honour of the country to expect him to die at 18 when he does not participate in making the decision which sends him to fight at that age. Therefore, again, this is not a valid argument.
All the arguments advanced against the voting age being lowered to 18 have failed to answer the test of logic. What I found very strange was how, having rejected the age of 18, some hon. Members can say that the age of 20 is reasonable.
I have not heard during the course of the debate any argument for the age of

20, although I have heard many against the age of 18. I am, therefore, thrown back on what my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone said, although he and I often disagree. On this occasion, as an impartial onlooker, I am convinced that this must be a compromise, since nobody defends it. There are those who defend lowering the age to 18 and those who do not think it ought to be lowered. There are those who say that it should be 20, hut they give no reason. The reason for that it that this is a compromise, and no argument has been adduced to defend the age of 20.
The hon Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Iremonger) referred to a danger which is the crux of the matter. The hon. Member referred to young people in similar terms to the way in which I have referred to them, in respect of their interest in politics and idealism. He also pointed out a great danger, of which I become increasingly aware each time I speak at a university or to young people.
My generation is only a decade removed from university, and we can remember the Suez and other demonstrations in which we participated. We always believed that we had an answer in Parliament, through a political party, and that we could exert our influence through the democratic system. What disturbs me more than anything else is that the young people today are rejecting democracy. They reject this House. The radical element rejects the Labour Party as an instrument for change, and few think of any alternative instrument. This puts into jeopardy the whole Parliamentary system. There is a growing gap between those of us who try to use Parliamentary democracy for change and the younger generation, particularly those at university. We must reestablish a meaningful dialogue between those young people who reject the system and those of us who participate in it. One way of doing so is to help them to participate by giving them the vote, by giving them the right to exercise their judgment in selecting a political party. For this reason I support my right hon. Friend in rejecting the Amendment.

Mr. Callaghan: I recognise that there are hon. Members present who wish to speak, although I do not think that they have all been present throughout the


whole day. I remind the Committee that we are still on the first Amendment in Committee and, if we were to take as long over every Amendment as we have over this one, it would be a long debate.
I thought it right not to intervene earlier, since this is the biggest single issue in the Bill, and it is appropriate that there should be a full day's discussion if the Committee so wish. We have had 24 speeches on the subject, so it cannot be claimed that every point of view has not been well represented.
In addition, we debated this subject almost exclusively both on Second Reading and on the White Paper, and most of the 35 speeches which were made on those two occasions traversed the same ground. We have, therefore, had a total of at least 60 speeches on the subject, and I hope the Committee feels that we have heard a sufficient cross-section of opinions to come to a conclusion on this important issue.
I have been present during all these debates and I do not think that we have heard many, if any, new arguments today. Indeed, the occasion has been perhaps less interesting in the deployment of arguments than in the self-revelation of the approach made by many hon. Members to public affairs. I do not say that anyone has done himself disservice or discredit, but it is interesting to see the way in which hon. Members approach their responsibilities. I felt that the descriptions which a number of my colleagues gave of their work with sixth forms and in other ways showed that not only are they the tribunes of the people but very good salesmen for democracy and the Parliament of Westminster. If all that work of telling people about the way in which our democratic processes are carried out bears fruit, we should end up with an extremely well-educated democracy.
I want to deal first with Mr. Speaker's Conference, because I think that we have it in proper perspective now. When I spoke in the debate on the White Paper, I paid proper and deferential tribute to the work done by that microcosm of our colleagues making up Mr. Speaker's Conference. I have always felt and, after the speech of the hon. Member for Peters-field (Miss Quennell) I reiterate, that, if in two years she accumulated 14 lbs.

avoirdupois in the consideration of this matter, it only goes to show how much time our colleagues spent on it, and I think that everyone should be grateful for that.
However, they have a tendency to claim too much for themselves. We cannot accept the view that, even though they have spent all this time and no doubt a great deal of mature consideration on this among many other problems, we then have to put a date on what they did and rubber-stamp it through the House of Commons. That will not do as a view, especially as, judging from some of the tantalising revelations that we have had about what went on, with different versions from different people, I am not convinced that they reached the age of 20 as being the right age by a rational process of cool, dispassionate judgment, having weighed all the evidence that could be put before them.
We did not see their evidence, though I do not complain about that. I may be wrong, but I got the feeling that there may have been an element of, "If we do not support 20, it may be that some will want to go to 21, or it may be that others will even want that dastardly age of 18". It may be that what we have had presented to us by Mr. Speaker's Conference, with all majesty and authority, is the greatest consensus of view which could be obtained on this issue. Of course, one should not neglect a consensus. Obviously it is very important that one should get a consensus if possible, and I am the last to despise it. I see too many issues where false points are made when a dispassionate judgment would yield to reason in more ways than one. But, on this issue, it does not seem that this is a matter in which the House should put into commission its own judgment on what the appropriate age should be. Therefore, we should give Mr. Speaker's Conference all the weight that we normally give our colleagues who have spent a great deal of time in considering a matter, but we should not give it the authority that attaches, as far as I know, only to Papal pronouncements—and not even to those in these days.

Mr. Houghton: It may be that this subject was too difficult and contentious to be referred to Mr. Speaker's Conference. What Mr. Speaker's Conference


has done i9s to produce on a contentious issue the biggest common denominator of agreement of a conference composed of representatives from all sides of the House. That is what, traditionally, Mr.Speaker's Conference is intended to do, namely, to find an acceptable solution to a problem of constitutional importance which will keep it out of bitter party controversy and avoid a political crisis.

Mr. Callaghan: I am obliged to my right hon. Friend. I thought that I was trying to say much the same in different words, although I do not see the likelihood of provoking a constitutional crisis, and certainly the issue is hardly being decided on party lines.
The Amendment is distinguished by the signatures of some very senior right hon. Friends of mine. Indeed, I notice that every one of the signatures comes from this side of the Committee, although hon. Members opposite have intimated that they, too, have differing views among themselves. Therefore, I do not think that we are either in danger of two parties lining up against each other or of provoking a great constitutional crisis.
The right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) will no doubt work himself into a tremendous lather in due course, if I may anticipate the effervescence that I have come to expect from him.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. Hogg: The right hon. Gentleman is wrong again.

Mr. Callaghan: If the right hon. and learned Gentleman is so much a creature of opposites that I will keep him quiet by forecasting, I think that is something useful. He will no doubt work himself into a tremendous lather about the use of the Whip on the Government side. This is an absurdity and no one will take it seriously—[Interruption.] I hope that hon. Gentlemen opposite can find something more than that to cheer about. It would be a strange matter if the Government of the day, which carries the responsibility—which the Opposition does not carry, much as it would like—of ensuring its business goes through, were to deny themselves the opportunity of indicating to their supporters what line they should take in the Division.
That is what I am doing—[An Hon. Member: "With a three-line Whip."] issue the biggest common denominator My hon. Friends sitting below the Gang-way will tell hon. Gentlemen whether of they have a three-line Whip or not.

Mr. Hogg: They have.

Mr. Callaghan: My hon. Friends know that they have not got a three-line Whip. However, having heard my argument, I am sure that there will be no difficulty on their part in coming into the Lobby with me. That is he advice that I shall give them. It would be a strange matter if I did not indicate that that is the Government's view. I do not know whether I can persuade robust and relentless opponents like my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) or my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) who is, as usual, courteous and implacable in his opposition to the Clause and has fought it as well as he fought the Steel Bill through the House many years ago. However, I have no doubt that in the end the judgment of hon. Members will prevail. If there is a two-line Whip on this matter for the supporters of the Government, as there is, I am sure hat they will accept it in the spirit in which it is proffered.
We have had a number of very interesting speeches. I will pick out one or two at the very beginning, but I shall not take long in replying to them because all the arguments have been deployed.
It is a pleasure for me to say how much I agree with the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) that the Latey Committee was far too cynical in dismissing the argument, "If you are old enough to fight, you are old enough to vote". Indeed, after the First World War, the Government of the day temporarily introduced votes for soldiers under the age of 21 because they had fought for their country. Anyone who is old enough to fight for, and to put his life at the disposal of, his country certainly has the right to ask that he should be given the opportunity of a voice in its affairs. I regret this kind of cynicism which has been uttered by people who ought to know better.
I agree with the hon. Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Iremonger)—he is not here now—who said how little evidence


there is about the matter. As my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) said, the hon. Gentleman introduced a philosophical note into the debate. But there is no doubt that a good argument can be found for almost any age which may be chosen. As the hon. Member for Ilford, North said, it is to some extent a matter of hunch or prejudice or a matter of how we consider young people.
It is obviously not the case that all wisdom is to be found in youth. Neither is it the case that all wisdom is to be found in age. I agree with the Latey Report that there is undeniably
…a great increase in maturity at the age of 18.
Certainly young people are maturing earlier now than they were 20, 30 or more years ago. As Latey said:
At that age"—
of 18
the vast majority of young people are, in fact, running their own lives, making their own decisions and behaving as responsble adults".
If that is true, then it seems to me and the Government to be a natural extension that if they are fulfilling their social responsibilities at the age of 18, they should be allowed to fulfil their civic responsibilities, too.
It was said in the Latey Report that those of the Latey Committee's witnesses who seemed most closely in touch with the young favoured 18 as the age at which it was not only safe to give responsibility but undesirable to withhold it. That view has been put to us especially by some of the younger hon. Members who have spoken today, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huckfield) and my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland.
It has been instructive, but not conclusive, that, on the whole, the younger hon. Members have supported the proposal for votes at 18. Although one cannot necessarily draw a conclusion from this, these younger hon. Members are naturally in closer touch with the young people on whom we are proposing to confer this privilege and responsibility than are many of us who saw 18 many years ago.
While it is true that Mr. Speaker's Conference voted overwhelmingly against 18–one must take this into account; I do not dismiss the argument lightly—very few reasons have been adduced by the members of that conference for choosing 20. Indeed, if there was one reflection that I had, having listened to a great many speeches in the last three debates we have had, it is that most of the case against 18 seems to have been posed in terms which would have led one to conclude that there was no case for reducing the age at all.
I suggest, with respect to those who were members of Mr. Speaker's Conference, that they have not put to me to my satisfaction any overwhelming or compelling reasons why they came to the conclusion that it was right to reduce the age from 21 to 20, but wrong to reduce it from 21 to 18. All of their speeches have been devoted to proving that 18 is the wrong age, but not to proving that 20 is the right one.
In the absence of evidence to this effect, and having heard all the arguments, I have come to the conclusion that they reached a compromise. They thought that something must be done and said, in effect, "Most of us do not like 18. As perhaps something must be done, let us choose 20; and if people find that that is not as dangerous as we think it is, then later they can go to a lower age." That is a perfectly respectable argument, but not more weight should be attached to it than it will hold. And in view of the substantial body of evidence from Latey on other aspects of this matter, I must put the evidence which has been produced and the study that has been made against the unrehearsed, unheard and unpublished views of Mr. Speaker's Conference.

Mr. Onslow: The right hon. Gentleman is relying heavily on Latey. What puzzles many of us is how he finds it necessary to do that when the Government took a decision to put through this step before Latey had even reported. We have had no access to or report of the evidence which led the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues to this conclusion. We simply cannot accept it as a fact that they may have been a little ahead of their time.

Mr. Callaghan: I will gladly allow the hon. Gentleman to instruct me on what the Conservative Party did, but I will not allow him to tell me what the Labour Party did. The Labour Party was not in a position to decide to put this matter through. Only the Government can do that. The Labour Party in its election manifesto offered a view on this subject, and offered a view on it to Mr. Speaker's Conference, but it is for the Government to take the decision. The Government took no decision on this matter. It is no use the hon. Gentleman shaking his head he does not know what went on—I do. The Government neither considered this matter nor reached a conclusion on it until some months after the publication of Mr. Speaker's Conference conclusions. That is the difference, and if the hon. Gentleman stays here long enough he will learn the difference, between party and Government on this particular matter.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Mr. Kenneth Lewis rose—

Mr. Callaghan: No, I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman—

The Temporary Chairman (Sir Beresford Craddock): Order. If the right hon. Gentleman does not give way, the hon. Member must sit down.

Mr. Callaghan: The hon. Gentleman will be interested to hear that there are a number of matters on which the Labour Party has made representations to me on this Bill and on which I have not been able to meet the Labour Party. Some of us are able to separate the two responsibilities we hold in this matter, and I believe that if the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for St. Marylebone were Home Secretary he would adopt exactly the same line. It so happens that on some matters I agree with the Labour Party and on others I have not been able to meet it, but there is a distinction and a difference. I only dwell on the point because the hon. Gentleman has made the point before that we decided beforehand that we would do this, "so why bother to go to Mr. Speaker's Conference?" That is not so: the decision was taken afterwards.
I come back now to the question of votes at 18. I believe that these young people—and it is true of people of 19 as of 18—bring to this subject qualities

different from those of us who are older. Others have given their opinion of young people, and if I were to give my view of them I would say that they bring a certain honesty and a certain simplicity to the consideration of public affairs and I find that simplicity extremely attractive. They see things much more clearly than many of us who are older do. Is there any reason why honesty and simplicity should not form a strand in the total electorate that is made up of a great many other people, including the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Hirst), than whom there can be no one more cynical on these matters? Nevertheless, the hon. Member is entitled to put in his cynical vote and some citizens are entitled to put in an innocent vote if they wish, and all that goes to make up the great corporation of this country.
I would say, and we are all entitled to our own views—and a number of hon. Members opposite who would like to interrupt have not been here—that the older we get the more likely we are to vote on our prejudices, the more likely we are to vote on our interests, and the less likely we are to vote on this great matured judgment that I am told we only secure when we have been long enough in life to have had a long experience. I do not believe that for one moment. As I said on an earlier occasion, I think that young people bring a new and welcome dimension to the total body of citizens who will be voting. They have their own interests, and they have their own ideals, and I hope that they will seek to further them through the franchise.
I sum up what I have said. It will become increasingly difficult to explain to young people why for all social purposes they are entitled to regard themselves as adult at the age of 18, except on the question of the vote. I believe that this would be an anomaly that would become increasingly difficult to explain.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Gardner), in an excellent speech, said that when women got the vote it had the consequence of this House focusing much more attention on some women's problems than had been the case before. The difference in the debates after women had the vote from those of before was quite marked. I believe this House spent some time on problems of young people, but enfranchising young


people will focus more attention on them and I welcome the proposal for that purpose.
For years we politicians in our perorations have been used to telling young people that they hold the future in their hands. That is a stock peroration which is frequently used, but the fact is that young people already play a real part in the present. It is the view of the Government that they should be entitled to take part in decisions and to shape the present as well as the future. For that reason I ask the Committee to reject the Amendment.
As we have spent a long time on this subject, I hope that the Committee is now willing to come to a conclusion on the matter after the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone has concluded his speech. This subject is the major part of Clause 1; there is nothing else of particular significance in the Clause. I hope that when the Committee has come to a conclusion on this matter the Committee will give us the Clause tonight and we can then move on to the ne)t business tomorrow.

[Mr. SYDNEY IRVING in the Chair]

9.4.5 p.m.

Mr. Hogg: I fully agree with one thing that the Home Secretary said. Had he not also spoken, certainly not for the first time on this issue, I would not have been apologising to the Committee for having to inflict yet another speech on it myself. We have had previous debates on the question and I would accept from him that the arguments have been fully deployed. I would not have inflicted myself on the Committee had it not been for the fact that I thought a speech from this Front Bench should follow and to some extent counterbalance the speech from the Government Front Bench.
There are two quite separate points in this debate. One is a matter of judgment and the other a question of constitutional practice. It has been apparent from speeches made from both sides of the Committee that the question of votes at 18 is not something which commands universal assent in any of the three parties—except perhaps the Liberal Party. I thought I sensed a certain difference between the Liberal Chief Whip who spoke for his party and the

hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) who interrupted him.

Mr. Lubbock: I spoke for no one but myself; I was not speaking for my party.

Mr. Hogg: I am delighted to hear that the Liberal Party is as disunited as usual and no more united than the other two parties. The important political fact underlying this debate is that the Government have got the Whips on and the Opposition have not got the Whips on. It is worth while discussing the implications of this. It is not just that the Home Secretary thinks fit to give advice to his supporters and that I think fit to give advice to mine which they will not follow. That is to take altogether too simpliste a view of the situation.
I should like to see a little experiment if the Patronage Secretary would cooperate. Let him have two Divisions. one with the Whips off, and one with the Whips on. I suggest that no one in this Committee seriously thinks that the result would be anything like the same. When a Government with a large majority put the Whips on and an Opposition. who in the nature of things are in a minority, say that there shall be a free vote, the Government will get a majority which is totally disproportionate to the real opinions of the Committee. This is what I find very difficult to stomach. The hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling) who spoke from a vertical position, unlike the hon. Member for Yarmouth (Dr. Gray), said that the Government always—

Dr. Hugh Gray: I object very strongly to the right hon. and learned Gentleman's statement that the two results would be different. He said that nobody would disagree with him in that assertion. I disagree with him. On an issue of this kind, which is one of principle, my hon. Friends do not care whether the Whip is on with two lines or not. This is my contention against the right hon. and learned Gentleman's.

Mr. Hogg: I have always thought that the hon. Member is amongst the most charming and naïve of all the Members of the House of Commons. Although I accept that his own vote would be cast irrespective of the party Whips, I am sure that the statistical results of the


experiment which I have proposed would be sufficient to belie his confidence.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Mr. Arthur Lewis rose—

Mr. Hogg: No. The hon. Member for the Hams—both of them—[Laughter.] I am afraid this is getting out of control.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for repeating that crack which he makes so consistently. On the question of three-line and two-line Whips, is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the most brilliant, the most able, the most witty and the silliest speaker we have here said in the Profumo debate that a three-line Whip is only a summons to be in attendance? That was the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg).

Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman is mistaken: I was not then a Member of the House and, therefore, not the most able of the Members who were here on that occasion.
I am sure that for the Government to offer strong advice on an occasion like this is a mistake. I think I know what would be, broadly speaking, the result of a Division if the Government had kept the Whips off. I think that I am in a minority, probably even in my own party, in supporting the Amendment and in opposing the change. I should like to know for certain as a result of a Division that I was right in that view. I never will know now, because the Government Whips will be on and the Opposition will not have the Whips on. I should have thought that this was the wisdom of the case.
Despite what the hon. Member for Woolwich, West said, there obviously must be a relationship between this issue and the Latey Report, upon which we have not yet decided in a definitive sense. I take a different view from that of the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss). There is a certain logic in having the same age of majority for voting and for making a will, for marrying without parental consent, or—not for making contracts, for we can all make contracts—for breaking a contract, which was the point at issue in the Latey Report. There is a certain logic there, and, although I accept from the right

hon. Gentleman that the Latey Committee disclaimed such a relationship, I am in favour of tidiness in public affairs.

Sir D. Glover: If my right hon. and learned Friend is in favour of tidiness in public affairs, in which way would he alter the law relating to driving licences and to homosexual offences?

Mr. Hogg: There are limits even to tidiness, and I do not want untidiness pursued, as it were, as a principle. There is a great deal to be said for the view that the two subjects go together.
I have declared myself on this matter. I think it a mistake to tie people between the ages of 18 and 21 to their contracts. I believe that a certain number—not many, but some—of unhappy marriages will result from lowering the age from 21 to 18 at which young people may marry without parental consent. I see a relationship between the fact that young people do not wish to be tied to their contracts—this was established in the Latey Committee—and the view that they might not properly be given the right to vote.
The Government have nothing to offer to hon. Members of the Committee in the way of wisdom which they could not equally well find out for themselves. I think I know what the trouble is. My mind goes back almost to the year 1938 when I was first elected a Member. I once told a Whip, a Government Whip in those days, that I doubted that the Government were right on a certain issue. He said to me—I thought it the height of cynicism at the time—"We are not interested in people who vote for us when we are right. We are only interested in people who vote for us when we are wrong". As I say, I thought it the height of cynicism at the time, but the fact is that, when the Government put the Whips on, they are almost always wrong.
Why do we have to get up in Stygian darkness at 7 o'clock in the morning?—because the Government put the Whips on over British Standard Time. When will they learn that the House of Commons, left to itself, is wiser than Governments on matters of general legislative concern? Left to itself, the Committee is wise enough to defeat, if it wishes, the right hon. and so-called learned Member for St. Marylebone when he says that


the vote ought not to be given to people at the age of 18. But we shall never know now. Hon. Members opposite are so meek. [Hon. Members: "Oh."]

Mr. Gardner: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman, therefore, give us an assurance that his right hon. and hon. Friends will have a free vote on the question of the municipal franchise?

Mr. Hogg: I should certainly do it if the Government would do it; but I fear that that will not be so on either side. But this occasion, I think, is one when we could indulge ourselves in a little free love.
The debate came to life only when we stopped discussing Mr. Speaker's Conference and what went on behind closed doors. I accept that there are many arguments for making public the proceedings of the conference, though I doubt that a single Member would he influenced in his votes if they were published, every line and all 14 lbs. of it. I doubt that the report would be a best-seller. There are arguments in favour of it. There are also arguments against it, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) suggested. What there cannot be any arguments in favour of is what has actually happened—an agreement to keep the thing secret and a conflicting series of speeches as to what actually took place. This is what I ventured to say during the course of—

It being Ten o'clock, The CHAIRMAN, left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.

Committee report Progress.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That the Proceedings on the Representation of the People Bill and on the Motion relating to Police may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour during a period of one and a half hours after Ten o'clock, though opposed.—[Mr. Callaghan.]

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL

Again considered in Committee

Question again proposed.

Mr. Hogg: I am delighted to think that we are making progress, and I intend to help the Committee with that commendable object. But I must just say this to the Government, if I may be serious for more than a moment: most Governments could manage, without loss of dignity, to put the Whips on a little less often than they do. I should have had the Whips off on all the series of debates we have had on this subject and on similar matters, and I do not think that the Government would have lost a single Division had they done so.
I now turn briefly away from the constitutional issue which ensures the victory of the Government against a divided Opposition by a distorted and swollen majority, to the merits of the case. The hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) in rather a bitter speech, I thought more bitter than the circumstances justified, accused my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) who supported the Amendment, which was moved from the benches opposite, of a mistrust of the electorate.
The argument, which was repeated by several hon. Members opposite, was that this was the kind of argumentation which had always been presented against the forty shilling franchise, the enfranchisement of women, and every advance in the franchise which had ever taken place. But that argument proves too much, if it proves anything at all. I do not think that any one of us mistrusts the electorate. We should not be here if we mistrusted it too much. What we are in the presence of is a question of judgment. Everybody knows that it would be insane to offer the vote to children of nine or 10, and everybody knows that it would be unduly restrictive to offer the vote only to those above the age of, say, 25. The question is where one must draw the line, a question which is posed in the knowledge that one must draw the line somewhere, and that it must essentially be a question of degree, and not of principle, not of philosophy, but of practical judgment.
It may be that the 18s have it. But the two points I ventured to put before the Committee had nothing to do with mistrust. They were, first of all, that where, in the nature of things, one has to make an arbitrary decision based not upon some overriding principle but upon a balance of advantages, there was something to be said for the traditional age because it was traditional—not because the traditional age has any magic in it but because it is not manifestly worse than any other and because it carries with it a long tradition of support and authority.
I admit that, left to myself, I would have left the age at 21. But I choose the age of 20 in support of the Amendment because it forms the consensus of a number of universally respected members of this Committee. But I cannot see any other basis upon which a decision can be made. I do not say that this is ideal, but some decision has to be made in one direction or another. Why should 18 be

better than 17 or 16 or 15? I do not know.

I believe that, if one started allowing people to make contracts and then held them to them at the age of 15, there would be a public outcry. I believe that there is a relationship between the other responsible acts which an individual has to make and the right and privilege of voting. I see the argument in favour of making them the same, but I do not see the argument in favour of changing them unless there is an overwhelming case to do so.

You may think, Mr. Irving, that this is unduly conservative. That is what I am about. I am a Conservative and I am not the only conservative in the Committee on either side. But, speaking for myself, and with all these reservations, I shall vote for the Amendment.

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 121. Noes 275.

Division No. 10.
AYES
[10.8 p.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Neave, Airey


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Gower, Raymond
Nicholls, Sir Harmar


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Grant, Anthony
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Grant-Ferris, R.
Onelow, Cranley


Batsford, Brian
Gresham Cooke, R.
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. EdmundS)
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Bennett, Sir Frederlc (Torquay)
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. &amp; Fhm)
Hail-Davis, A. G. F.
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)


Benv. Hn. Anthony
Harrison, Col. Slr Harwood (Eye)
Peel, John


Black, sir Cyril
Hastings, Stephen
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Blaker, Peter
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Pink, R. Bonner


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

Pounder, Rafton


Body, Richard
Heseltine, Michael
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Bossom, Sir Clive
Higgins, Terence L.
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)


Boston, Terence
Hill, J. E. B.
Prior, J. M. L.


Brewis, John
Hirst, Geoffrey
Pym, Francis


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Hobden, Dennis
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Holland, Philip
Rhys WiUiams, Sir Brandon


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Holland, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Ridsdale. Julian


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nalm)
Howell, David (Gulldford)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Carlisle, Mark
Hunt, John
Russell, Sir Ronald


Clark, Henry
Hutchison, Michael Chark
Scott-Hopkins, James


Clegg, Walter
Irivne, Byant Godman (Rye)
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whltby)


Conlan, Bernard
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mingten)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Jones, J. ldwal (Wrexham)
Spriggs, Leslie


Cordle, John
Kenyon, CIifford
Stainton, Keim


Corfield, F. V.
Kershaw, Anthony
Stodart, Anthony


Costain, A. P.
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Tapsell, Peter


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Catheart)


Doughty, Charles
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Temple, John M.


Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
MacArthur, Ian
Thatcher, Mm. Margaret


Eden, Sir John
Maddan, Martin
Waddington, David


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Maude, Angus
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Elliott,R. W.(N1c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Mawby, Ray
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Emery, Peter
Maxwell-HyslOP, R. J.
wright, Esmond


Errimgton, Sir Eric
Miscampbell, Norman
Wylie, N. R.


Eyre, Reginald
Mitchetl, David (Basingstoke)



Farr, John
Monro, Hector
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Foster, Sir John
More, Jasper
Mr. C. R. Strauss and


Galbraith, Hn. T. C.
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charler
Sir David Renton.


Glover, Sir Douglas






NOES


Allaun, Fran4 (Salford, E.)
Faulds, Andrew
Mackenzie, Alasdair(Ross&amp;Crom'ty)


Alfdritt, Walter
Fernyhough, E.
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)


Allen, Scholefield
Finch, Harold
Mackintosh, John P.


Anderson, Donald
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Maclennan, Robert


Archer, Peter
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
McMaster, Stanley


Armstrong, Ernest
Foot, Rt. Hn. Sir Dingle (Ipswich)
MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)


Ashton, J. W.
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Ford, Ben
McNamara, J. Kevin


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Forrester, John
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Fortescue, Tim
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)


Bagler, Gordon A. T.
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Mallalieu,J.P.W.(Huddersfield,E.)


Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
Freeson, Reginald
Manuel, Archie


Balniel, Lord
Galpern, Sir Myer
Mapp, Charles


Barnett, Joel
Gardner, Tony
Marks, Kenneth


Beaney, Alan
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy


Bence, Cyril
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Mendelson, John


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Mikardo, Ian


Bidwell, Sydney
Gregory, Arnold
Millan, Bruce


Biffen, John
Grey, Charles (Durham)
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Biggs-Davison, John
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Mills, Peter (Torrington)


Binns, John
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)


Bishop, E. S.
Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)
Molloy, William


Booth, Albert
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)


Boyden, James
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Hamling, William
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Braine, Bernard
Hannan, William
Morris, John (Aberavon)


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Brooks, Edwin
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Murray, Albert


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Hattersley, Roy
Murton, Oscar


Brown,Bob(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Hazell, Bert
Nabarro, Sir Gerald


Brown, R. W (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Neal, Harold


Buchan, Norman
Heffer, Eric S.
Note, John


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'hurn)
Henlg, Stanley
O'Malley, Brian


Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus,N&amp;M)
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Orem, Albert E.


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Hilton, W. S.
Orbach, Maurice


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Hooley, Frank
Orme, Stanley


Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)
Hooson, Emlyn
Oswald, Thomas


Carmichael, Neil
Homer, John
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'en)


Carter-Jonec, Lewis
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Owen, Will (Morpeth)


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Hoy, James
Padley, Walter


Chapman, Donald
Huckfield, Leslie
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Coe, Denis
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Palmer, Arthur


Coleman, Donald
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Pardoe, John


Concannon, J. D.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Park, Trevor


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Pavitt, Laurence


Crouch, David
Hunter, Adam
Pearson, Arthur (Potypridd)


Crowder, F. P.
Hynd, John
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Iremonger, T. L.
Pentland, Norman


Cunningham, Sir Knox
Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.


Currie, G. B. H.
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Price, William (Rugby)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Janner, Sir Barnett
Probert, Arthur


Dalyell, Tam
Jeger,Mrs.Lena(H'b'n&amp;St.P'cras,S.)
Rankin, John


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Jenkins, Hugh, (Putney)
Rees, Merlyn


Davdison,James(Aberdeenshire,W.)
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Reynolds, Rt. Hn. G. W.


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Davies, 'lfor (Gower)
Jopling, Michael
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy


Davies, S. 0. (Merthyr)
Kelley, Richard
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Dean, Paul
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Robinson,Rt. Hn. Kenneth(St.P'c'as)


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Rose, Paul


Dell, Edmund
Lawson, George
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Dempsey, James
Leadbitter, Ted
Rowlands, E.


Dickens, James
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Ryan, John


Dobson, Ray
Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Lee, John (Reading)
Scott, Nicholas


Doig, Peter
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Sharples, Richard


Drayson, C. B.
Lestor, Miss Joan
Shaw, Arnold (Hford, S.)


Dunn, James A.
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Sheldon, Robert


Dunnett, Jack
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Lomas, Kenneth
Short,Rt.Hn.Edward(N,c'tle-u-Tyne)


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Loughlin, Charles
Short, Mrs. Renée(W'hampton N.E.)


Eadie, Alex
Lubbock, Eric
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Edelman, Maurice
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Silverman, Julius


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Slater, Joseph


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
McBride, Neil
Small, William


Ellis, John
McCann, John
Snow, Julian


English, Michael
MacColl, James
Speed, Keith


Ensor, David
Macdonald, A. H.
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
McGuire, Michael
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)

Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Ewing, Mrs. Winifred

Swingler, Stephen







Symonds, J. B.
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Taverne, Dick
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Winnick, David


Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Wall, Patrick
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Teeling, Sir William
Wallace, George
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Thomas, Rt. Hn. George
Ward, Dame Irene
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Thomson, Rt. Hn. George
Watkins, David (Consett)
Worsley, Marcus


Thornton, Ernest
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)



Tilney, John
Weitzman, David
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Tinn, James
Wellbeloycl, James
Mr. Alan Fitch and


Urwin, T. W.
Whitlock, William
Mr. Joseph Harper.


Valley, Eric G.
Wilkins, W. A.

The CHAIRMAN, being of the opinion that the principle of the Clause and any matters arising thereon had been adequately discussed in the course of debate on the Amendment proposed thereto, forthwith put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 47 (Debate on Clause or Schedule standing part), That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Question agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

To report Progress and ask leave to sit again.—[Mr. Fitch.]

Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.

LANCASHIRE POLICE (AMALGAMATION) ORDER

10 20 p.m.

Mr. Albert Booth: I beg to move,
That the Lancashire Police (Amalgamation) Order, dated 12th July 1968, a draft of which was laid before this House on 19th July, in the last Session of Parliament, be withdrawn.
The terms of the Motion are determined by Parliamentary procedure. It is not possible under this procedure to amend a police amalgamation Order. The only way in which an Amendment to this Order can be carried is for the Order to be withdrawn and laid before the House again.
Many Members are concerned with many aspects of the Lancashire Police (Amalgamation) Order. I concern myself mainly with those aspects of it which affect the Furness peninsula in which my constituency is situated and will leave other hon. Members to express their points of view about other parts of the affected area. The Furness area is at present policed by two forces: the Barrow county borough police force, and the Lonsdale Division of the Lancashire Constabulary. The Furness area is a peninsula geographically divorced from the rest of Lancashire. In fact, in order to each Barrow or the area policed by the North Lonsdale Police Force from central Lancashire, one must travel through Westmorland. There is no geographical unity about these two areas.
Since the amalgamation of the Cumberland and Westmorland forces, the Furness peninsula has become an enclave within the area of the Cumbrian Police Force. Therefore, grave reflections are cast on the wisdom of the Home Secretary in proceeding with an amalgamation Order which leaves this geographical anomaly instead of first amending Section 21 of the Police Act, 1964, so that he could take the logical course of amalgamating this area with the area at present policed by the Cumbrian force. This would not only make for a geographic unity of the area covered by the Cumbrian force but give many advantages in administration.
However, since Section 21 of the Police Act. 1964, has not yet been amended, it

is not legally possible to amalgamate the North Lonsdale division area with the Cumbrian police area. But this objection does not apply to the area covered by the Barrow force since this is the area of a separate county borough police force and it is legally possible to amalgamate this area with the Cumbria force should the Home Secretary wish to do so.
The situation which has arisen was clearly foreseeable and therefore we can only assume that the Home Secretary, in determining to proceed with this amalgamation before dealing with the anomaly created by Section 21 of the Police Act, has decided that in respect of the majority of the police areas covered by this Order there is some special urgency which overrides and outweighs considerations of geographic unity or ease of administration. Had Section 21 been amended, there is no doubt that the Order would not have been in this form, and instead we should have had an infinitely superior and logical amalgamation.
Special problems attach to the policing of many areas which are covered by amalgamation Orders, problems that will not he fully understood by the committee of 57 drawn from all over Lancashire, as proposed in the Order. It is debatable whether the committee proposed in the Order could understand as well as local watch committees the problems of which watch committees have intimate knowledge. It is extremely hard to imagine a chief constable responsible for the whole of Lancashire dealing effectively before the committee with a complaint about a policeman whom he probably does not know relating to an area which he has probably never seen. The difficult task of balancing police efficiency with safeguards against the abuse of police authority requires a much more sensitive and efficient instrument than is conceived within the terms of the Order.
The Home Secretary unquestionably has power to amalgamate police areas where it appears to him to be expedient to do so in the interests of police efficiency. Parliament in its wisdom, however, has provided that before the Home Secretary makes a compulsory amalgamation scheme, if there is an objection, a local inquiry must be held. The Home Secretary has power to appoint a


person to conduct that inquiry, and he appointed such an inspector for the Lancashire police amalgamation inquiry. The Home Secretary exercised his right to be represented before such an inquiry, and was represented by Mr. Joseph Molony, Q.C., and by Mr. C. N. Glide-well. Barrow was represented by Mr. W. M. Robinson, the Deputy Town Clerk. I suggest that Barrow was so confident of the ability of its Deputy Town Clerk and so sure of the justice of its case that it did not feel it necessary to employ the services of an eminent Q.C. What transpired showed that Barrow was right in its judgment.
The conclusion of that inquiry was that Barrow should be omitted from the amalgamation scheme, with a view to amalgamation with Cumbria in two years' time. This was the decision of an independent inquiry which listened carefully to the Home Secretary's case, presented by extremely well qualified men, and the case presented by the Deputy Town Clerk, and decided that the case presented by the Deputy Town Clerk was the one for which it should opt.
A further conclusion of the independent inquiry was that until it was possible to amalgamate Barrow with Cumbria, Barrow should remain an independent force and that only if an amalgamation with Cumbria was not possible within two years should the Barrow police force be amalgamated with the Lancashire police force.
It is not surprising that an independent expert inquiry should come to this conclusion. Not only does it make geographical sense to amalgamate Barrow with Cumbria, as it would make geographical sense to amalgamate North Lonsdale with Cumbria, it also makes for greater administrative efficiency.
In addition to these considerations, as the inquiry has shown, there is no justification on grounds of police efficiency for amalgamating the Barrow police force with the Lancashire police force. I will give one of the criteria which was covered by the report of the inquiry about the relative efficiency of the police forces involved. The average detection rate of crime in Barrow over the last three years has been 64 to 68 per cent. In the Lancashire Constabulary area it

was 40 to 45 per cent. I had better not make other comparisons of this kind. as I might be relying on the support of hon. Members from other Lancashire constituencies tonight, and I would not want them to think that Barrow's objection to its force being amalgamated with theirs rested on the ground that we thought their forces were inferior. The point is that it cannot be claimed that to include Barrow in this kind of amalgamation will produce a more efficient policing of Barrow. Such a conclusion would be a travesty and a distortion of the facts before the inquiry and, of course, would be completely at variance with its recommendations.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State might argue that this amalgamation should be allowed to go through and at some later date, when the Royal Commission on Local Government has reported, or when Section 21 of the Police Act, 1964, has been amended, transfer Barrow and North Lonsdale into the Cumbria division. If this is my hon. Friend's contention, I think that it would be bad for the morale of the police force to be chopped and changed between one area and another. It would certainly not help in maintaining the efficiency of the force, which should be a primary consideration in any amalgamation.
What is more, it would have certain immediate technical objections. For example. to amalgamate Barrow with the Lancashire Police Force and subsequently to transfer it to the Cumbria Police Foree would involve the Barrow force giving up its AM radio equipment, which is at present used by both Cumbria and Barrow, and turning over to FM radio equipment while it was part of Lancashire's force and transferring back to AM radio equipment when it was subsequently transferred to the Cumbria force.
There is no doubt that the Royal Commission on Local Government has thrown local government into the melting pot. The relevance of this to the Order is brought out in the report of the inquiry. Whatever we might conceive to be the final recommendations of the Royal Commission on Local Government, no one in his wildest moments would imagine that the Royal Commission will recommend that Lancashire's present county


boundary provides an ideal administration area for modern police needs. It obviously does not. The boundary exists —no doubt for very good historic reasons—but it certainly does not relate in any way to the needs of police administration today.
The independent inquiry has pronounced what we regard as a fair and impartial judgment on this issue. In accordance with the Police Act, 1964, the matter has been fully investigated by an independent Inspector who has concluded that, from the point of view of police efficiency, the Barrow police area ought to be amalgamated with Cumbria, not with Lancashire.
It is wrong that the Government should shelter behind the technical difficulty of amending Section 21 of the Police Act, 1964. The Order should not be made in the terms of the draft, but a draft should be relaid before Parliament with the Barrow police area excluded.
Section 21 of the 1964 Act could be amended in the next two years by a short Bill and it would then be possible for the Barrow police area and the Lonsdale Division of the Lancashire police area to be transferred to Cumbria. To refuse to do this would be to ride roughshod over the judgment of men experienced in the police administration of the area, would be to flout the decision of an independent inquiry and would be to ignore the proper police requirements of the area.
I hope, therefore, that the Minister will give an undertaking to withdraw the Order and redraft it in a way which will reflect the views of those concerned, who desire to see that police administration is not only efficient in apprehending criminals but is sensitive to the need to protect the public against possible abuse of police power and to ensure that the police remain an instrument for social justice in the area.

10.37 p.m.

Mr. Ian Percival: I support the conclusions to which the hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) came, if in some respects for different reasons. As many hon. Members from Lancashire wish to speak in this debate. I will be brief, particularly since the points involved are well known to the Home Office.
One of the striking features of this whole question of the amalgamation of the Lancashire police forces has been that from the start anybody on the spot with practical knowledge of how the police forces in the area work has been against what is proposed.

Mr. Mark Carlisle: Mr. Mark Carlisle (Runcorn) indicated dissent.

Mr. Percival: I do not know why my hon. Friend dissents or what Cheshire knows about Lancashire.
We have in Lancashire many people who have spent a great deal of time in local government, who know the needs of the area and whose views, even if we do not always agree with them, are entitled to considerable respect. My complaint against the Home Office is that the Department in this matter, from start to finish, has not only not shown enough respect for local feelings, but has shown no respect at all. My information is that throughout this affair no advice was taken locally before the proposal for amalgamating the county forces was put forward.
If I had evidence to show that anybody on the spot had been consulted, I would feel differently about the matter. Indeed, that is all I would have asked. I could understand if the local people had been consulted and their views rejected for good reason. But I gather that nobody on the spot was consulted before a full scheme was put forward. Perhaps they have been consulted since then. Certainly their views have been listened to. The hon. Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Mapp) and I have been members of at least three delegations. Our views were listened to afterwards, but always in an atmosphere of everything having been decided for us. "Yes, dear boys. We will certainly hear what you have to say, but you are wrong," is the feeling we have had. If that is what the Minister will say tonight is consultation, then by my book it is not. By consultation I mean discussion before something is decided. I said, and I shall try to stick to it, that as many hon. Members wish to speak in this debate I will put my points in a potted version. I put forward the principal objections which my watch committee has to this proposal. It has been running police forces in Lancashire for quite a time. I


do not agree with everything it does, but it knows something about running police forces in the area and its views are entitled to considerable weight which they have not received as yet.
The first point it makes is one on which the hon. Member for Oldham, East and I happily find agreement. We have argued it time and again—neither whip or spur would force another pace out of it. What is the sense in doing this when the whole question of local government is in the melting pot and a report is due to be published on it either this year or next? When the whole of local government in the area may be changed in the comparative near future, why take a local government boundary as it exists as the basis for this amalgamation?

Mr. Ron Lewis: Am I to understand from the hon. Member's remarks that none of the watch committees was consulted about this proposed amalgamation?

Mr. Percival: That is my understanding.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Elystan Morgan): The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Elystan Morgan) indicated dissent.

Mr. Percival: The Under-Secretary shakes his head. If he can tell me of any consultations which took place with the watch committee before the proposal was put forward to have a police force for the whole county, I will take note of what he says and adjust what I have said accordingly. Certainly my watch committee was not consulted before the proposal was put forward. I do not think that in the discussion we have had with Ministers anyone has challenged this. My understanding is that the proposal was announced for Lancashire and then an opportunity was given for views to be expressed. This is the wrong way round. One should take the views first and throw them aside if one has good reasons for so doing, but here there was no consultation before the proposal.
This is not a technical matter or a mere matter of timing. In the view of my watch committee and in my view there is a very important principle involved. If the Minister wishes to inter-

vene and tells me that I am wrong and that there were widespread consultations before the proposal was mooted, I will gladly give way to him.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: I will deal with the matter.

Mr. Percival: If the Minister is to deal with the matter it would be better to do so now, but I do not believe that he can.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: If the hon. Member seriously suggesting that, before these proposals for amalgamation were put forward by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) in 1966, proposals for amalgamation had already emanated from any local authority in Lancashire?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that interventions will be brief. I have a queue of Lancashire Members of Parliament wishing to take part in a debate which is for only 45 minutes.

Mr. Percival: The Minister has entirely misunderstood the point. It is not a question of proposals emanating from Lancashire but from the Home Office and before they emanated from the Home Office someone in Lancashire should have been consulted. On my information they were not, or if so they were not the people who in my opinion ought to have been consulted.
My watch committee take the view —so do I—that the creation of a large authority like this will definitely sever local links and that is a bad thing. I am not standing for the principle that every little authority should have a local police force, although that is not something to treat with contempt—it is rather nice when an authority is proud of its police force and the police force is proud of its authority and wants to do a good job for it. I see nothing wrong in that. I do not go as far as that. We in Southport accept that there must be larger units. A long time ago it was accepted in our part of Lancashire that we could not keep the number of separate independent forces that we had. The advantages derived from local connections could have been preserved by having smaller amalgamations, but will be lost without any compensating advantage by having this enormous, elephantine amalgamation. The very


size of this amalgamation will produce problems which could have been avoided if a little more thought had been given to the matter and if those on the spot, who know the problems because they have been dealing with them, had been consulted before anybody had this idea and then, having had it, resolved to support come what may.
I do not think anybody could advance any geographical argument in favour of this amalgamation. It follows the county boundary, which is a geographical accident. It has nothing to commend it in terms of police force efficiency. It is divided into at least three clearly discernible regions as regards geographical working. On that ground alone it is, looked at in gross, absurd.
Then there is its size, not only in terms of geography but in terms also of manpower. There has been much comment about the size of the Metropolitan Police Force, which is by far the largest in the whole country; it is said that the force is too big and that this brings disadvantages. It is now proposed to have another police force which is nearly twice as large as the next largest proposed amalgamation. The expert witnesses—Mr. Stalley Lawrence, Sir Charles Martin, who appeared for Southport and who is an ex-Inspector of Constabulary, and Sir Philip Allen on behalf of the Home Office—all said that once a force exceeds 4,000 problems of personnel are created which it is desirable not to have.
Thirdly, it brings this difficulty, to which I have never heard any answer. When the police authority is determined, either there must be so little representation on the authority that it might as well not be there, or there must be so enormous an authority that it is unmanageable. The result is that there wil be an authority of 57, which is about as big as any manageable committee can be. Southport is to have one representative on the authority. I have no doubt that other boroughs of equal size and importance will have equal represen:ation. This is paper representation in practice. If there is one representative out of 57, a borough might as well have no representation.
Finally, my watch committee and I take, great exception to the argument which has been advanced so frequently

to the effect that nothing could be done except by amendment of Section 21 of the Police Act. Our case is, not that we object to amalgamation, but that we object to this amalgamation. Accepting the principle of amalgamation, somebody should sit down with those who know what they are talking about and ask, "What amalgamation shall there be in Lancashire?"
There has been a consensus here that there could be three amalgamations and that Barrow, which is the odd man out, if the hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness will forgive me for putting it in that way, can go to Cumbria in due time. On every practical argument that has been advanced, I believe this is accepted by all concerned. The hon. Member for Oldham, East will bear me out that in the delegations these practical arguments have never been contraverted. Nobody has ever suggested, even at the meetings with delegations, that the Government's scheme, viewed from the practical standpoint, was the best which could be devised. That is putting it mildly. I do not think that anyone has suggested even that it was a good one. What has been said was, "We cannot do anything else because Section 21 prevents us".
After the last delegation of which I was a member—I forget whether it was the second, third or fourth—I wrote to the right hon. Gentleman, now the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to express my dismay. I shall not quote the letter, because of the time, but I remember it well. The Home Secretary seemed to be saying to us not, "Do not be silly. My scheme is better than yours". He almost agreed that it was not a very good scheme, but he said, "Because of an existing Statute, I cannot do for Lancashire what ought to be done".
I wrote to say that I was dismayed. I could not believe that the House of Commons could be defeated by one of its own Statutes from doing what everybody who knew anything about the matter was convinced was right. Nothing that happened before or since has caused me to alter that view. It was said that Section 21 of the Police Act could not be amended because of the pressure of legislation. I have heard some funny things in the House. but that was one of the funniest.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will not think me discourteous if I remind him that there are at least 13 other constituencies involved in the Order, all the Members for which are here and wishing to speak. We have now just under 40 minutes left for debate, and I understand that the Minister wishes to take part.

Mr. Percival: With respect, Mr. Speaker, I have packed a good deal into 12 minutes. I have been watching the time closely, and, as you have probably appreciated, I am speaking rather faster than is, perhaps, usual for me. I have been diverted a little, but I am coming to the end. It is an important matter. On both sides, we have been fobbed off with the argument that what we propose cannot be done because it requires legislation. I regard that as a thoroughly spurious argument. It would not have taken much of the time of the House to put matters right. In any event, it would not have needed amending legislation; an enabling Act to enable what was proposed in respect of Lancashire could easily have been passed.
Having been a member of the all-party delegations, I know that those arguments have been put forward time and time again. I have run through them quickly. You did me the honour, Mr. Speaker, of calling me first after the hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness, so that I had the opportunity to put them. But, in addition to all that, there is the point that this whole affair has been an appalling piece of public relations.
We have all accepted that some amalgamation was necessary. A great deal of the hard feeling could have been avoided if there had been consultation at an early date, and if there had been any sort of indication that the views of people on the spot were valued and that some weight was attached to them. This brings me to my last point, the name of the force. It is to be called the Lancashire Constabulary. There has been no consultation whatever about it. It is not a point of vital importance, but it is part of the public relations picture.
I am told by policemen in my constituency that representatives of the Federation said, in effect, "This is going

to happen, boys. However hard we fight it, it will come", but, in order to try to create good feeling, they said, "It is an amalgamation, not a takeover". But now they find that there was no consultation about the name. The name of the Lancashire County Force has been adopted, and the troops, so to speak, whom the Federation were trying to ease along are now saying, "You see; it is just as we said after all. It is a simple take-over by the county force".
From start to finish, this has been an appalling exercise in public relations, and my chief complaint, apart from those made by my watch committee, is at the total lack of consultation, which has led to feelings which might so easily have been avoided.

10.55 p.m.

Mr. Charles Mapp: In view of what you have said, Mr. Speaker, I shall be as brief as possible, but I was leader of a deputation of the county boroughs in Lancashire to the then Home Secretary, and I must say something, brutal as it will be to the side of the argument of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.
First, I completely agree that the new force should not be called the Lancashire Constabulary. It should be the Lancashire Police Force. If my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State says that the watch committees of Lancashire were consulted, he will be wrong. The Police Federation was consulted on the morning of the announcement, way back on 18th May, 1966. HANSARD of that date tells me that the national organisations of police constables and superintendents were consulted. But the fact that seven or eight county police forces in Lancashire and 11 in Yorkshire were largely excluded by Ministerial action was the consequence.
I shall be quite unpersuaded if the Minister tries to argue that there was genuine consultation. What happened was that my right hon. Friend was rushed into legislation because of the then increasing crime rate. We from the Lancashire county boroughs were prepared to accept that some of the geography of those old county boroughs could be brought up to date. There was


a willing disposition to do so, and a large measure of progress was made.
The Home Secretary met a delegation including 12 Members of Parliament, and representing all the county boroughs in Lancashire. We are talking about 1¼million people in Oldham, Barrow-in-Furness, Blackburn, Bolton, Burnley, Blackpool, Preston, Rochdale, St. Helens, Southport, Warrington and Wigan. Is that an insignificant area of Lancashire? Those 11 million people were arbitrarily deprived of their democratic processes to deal with the criminal element, when their county boroughs were prepared to work out a much better police distribution for the county. My right hon. Friend the previous Home Secretary was arbitrary and very decisive. He did not wish to consult Members or the watch committees across Lancashire. Meeting them as I do, I know that a good deal of personal good will has been lost.
The other argument my right hon. Fr end used when the hon. and learned Member for Southport (Mr. Percival) and others were with us was that he had no Parliamentary time to make a simple alteration in the 1963 Act, which, in principle, was an Act that said that the Home Secretary could amalgamate police forces. All it needed was—

Mr. Speaker: Order. On this Order we cannot amend the parent Act.

Mr. Mapp: I accept that Ruling, Mr. Speaker. I leave to hon. Members how far they believe the statement that there was no Parliamentary time.
The county boroughs were disappointed with that arbitrary action and the decisive nature of the refusal. If the Home Secretary believes that he has filed for good the democratic feelings in some of the major county boroughs of Lancashire by putting together the second largest police force in the country, he is suffering from a great misunderstanding.
When the Royal Commission on Local Government makes its recommendations known, many of us believe that the right recommendations will be the natural environmental boundaries, which the large county boroughs have. We want to know whether at this stage the Minister is prepared to be open-minded about unscrambling the largely undemocratic Lancashire police force, so that it can

be reconstructed to meet the needs of conurbations, probably in most cases beyond 250,000 in population, and in some cases 500,000, in the enlarged county boroughs of Lancashire.
If the Home Secretary feels that Lancashire will be satisfied with having one major force in Liverpool, another in Manchester and another in Preston, he is deluding himself about the geography of the county. He must recognise that that is a quite unnatural division which does not provide for efficiency within the police force. Certainly, it cannot be democratic.
If his argument is that this is a step forward to a national police force, then let him say so frankly. But the Lancashire county boroughs do not want that policy introduced by the side door. As they become bigger, they want an opportunity to have a bigger police force. It may be said that the force must be at least one of 500 men, and I concede that immediately.
Having been with hon. Members of both sides of the House on that deputation, I have been pressed by some of them to take more vigorous action with the Home Secretary. I say this with some care: on reflection, it seems that I made a mistake in expressing good will towards the comment that there was pressure on Parliamentary time and that there was a need to deal with the increasing crime rate. It seems that I should have taken a longer point of view and should have been more obstinate.
The Home Secretary is most sensitive about police relationships. He must at least hold out the prospect that as and when county boroughs are delineated in the near future he will not resist the normal democratic processes by which the enlarged county boroughs would have their own police forces again, provided that they were large enough to be efficient to do the job required. He must not imagine that the county boroughs are prepared permanently to accept a Lancashire police force situated at Preston. If he thinks that they are prepared to accept such a situation, then at some time I shall find myself in the opposite Lobby to him and to my Government. The case put by Barrow is a complete illustration of the contradictions across the county arising from the new compromise. The Home Secretary


more or less agreed at the time that it was nothing more than a compromise.
Hon. Members were able to show the Home Secretary that there was good will among local authorities. We dragged them away from the parish pump point of view. They were prepared to consider worthwhile police areas. If the Home Secretary continues in 1968 to resist our request, much stronger demands will be made upon him. The matter will be raised again when the local government boundaries are delineated, for the people of Lancashire will want their police forces back again.

11.3 p.m.

Mr. Norman Miscampbell: There is widespread sympathy on both sides of the House for the hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth), for the recommendations for his constituency were totally disregarded by the Government. As was said by the hon. Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Mapp), that is a simple illustration of what has been happening in Lancashire.
The Minister must be sensible to the opposition being voiced on both sides of the House. Blackpool opposed this amalgamation—and it opposed it rightly and in my view for good reasons. Blackpool was not alone. Barrow, Southport, Warrington and Wigan all opposed it openly, while Bolton, Burnley, Preston and Rochdale said that they would have done so had not the Home Secretary made it clear that compulsion would be used. There are great interests in Lancashire, and they all feel that the scheme was not in Lancashire's interests.
Blackpool's opposition was not parochial. We were prepared to accept a larger scheme. Indeed, if Blackpool had wished to make parochial objections, it need have looked no further than its own force. The inspector who heard the inquiry said that both Blackpool and Southport had highly efficient forces with good morale and esprit de corps. He said that Blackpool in particular had unique problems through its position as England's largest holiday resort and that, if there were ever small county borough forces which deserved to survive, those of Blackpool and Southport would make two of them.
Both I and my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Blaker) have been sensitive to Blackpool's unique claim to a force of its own. But, as I say, that claim was not made on Blackpool's behalf. It was prepared to accept a wider amalgamation. But what happened? All opposition was turned down and we are forced to accept now an amalgamation involving 7,000 policemen.
There are three lessons to be drawn from what happened at the inquiry and subsequently. First, I believe that Section 21 of the Police Act, 1964, should never have stood in the way of smaller amalgamations. Some way should have been found round what was nothing more than a procedural difficulty. Secondly, we should not be anticipating the Royal Commission on Local Government. We are to have a major local government reorganisation, yet, by 18 months or two years, the Government are anticipating the Royal Commission's proposals in the case of one of the most important functions in local government —the police service.
The Government say that they are prepared to anticipate, but I wonder what their argument will be when we come to the question of redistribution. We may see the other side of the penny when that matter comes to be discussed in the House next year.
Thirdly, this is another important example of the way in which the regions are being flouted by London, and those of us from Lancashire and other regions are aware of the growing feeling there that London does not know best. Once again, we have seen what is undoubtedly a London central Government scheme forced upon a region. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides will ignore the protests from the regions against this type of policy at their peril.

11.8 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Elystan Morgan): The Motion was eloquently moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) and is supported by hon. Members on both sides of the House. No one doubts the strength of their feeling against this proposal or the sincerity of their desire to see that the police service in that large and complex


area of North-West England shall be efficient. My right hon. Friend is, however, satisfied that it is necessary for the efficient policing of the area that this scheme should proceed and that it should proceed now. I shall, therefore, advise the House to reject the Motion.
The proposition that the County of Lancashire and 13 county boroughs within the geographical county should be combined for police purposes was made in May, 1966, by the then Home Secretary as part of a wider programme of amalgamations covering the whole of England and Wales. This programme was widely welcomed at the time on both sides of the House, by the Press and by the organisations representing the various ranks in the police service. It will be within the knowledge of hon. Members that great progress has been made in various parts of the country with implementation of the programme, subject to some modifications made in the course of working through it.
In many areas the schemes were implemented by voluntary action. In others, as in Lancashire, voluntary negotiations were unsuccessful and compulsory schemes were introduced and local inquiries held. Apart from Lancashire—the largest scheme—South Wales, where a local inquiry has recently been held—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not stray outside the bounds of order. We are debating the Lancashire amalgamation.

Mr. Morgan: I was trying to set the matter in its context, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman was trying to set it in its context, but he must speak about the Order itself.

Mr. Morgan: Certainly, Mr. Speaker.
I should further like to stress that when the announcement of the nation-wide programme was made, it soon became apparent in Lancashire that the county boroughs wished to urge the Home Secretary either to delay the amalgamation until after the Royal Commission on Local Government had reported or to amend the Police Act, 1964 to enable parts of areas to be combined with others in order to make alternative schemes possible for Lancashire.
In July, 1966 deputations were received from various bodies, including the North-Western County Boroughs' Association, following which the county boroughs were told of the Home Secretary's decision not to seek to amend the Police Act and not to defer the scheme until the Royal Commission had reported. They were urged to negotiate towards a voluntary scheme. In the debate in this House on crime, on 8th August, 1966, the then Home Secretary referred to the deputations and said:
…I must make it finally clear that there can be no question of waiting for the Royal Commission, and I do not think it right, either to seek a prior amendment of the Police Act…".—[Official Report, 8th August, 1966; Vol. 733, c. 1047.]
Another deputation consisting of Members of Parliament and representatives of the North Western County Boroughs' Association was led by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Mapp) in December, 1966. Again, the Home Secretary's decision to proceed with the amalgamation was reiterated.
During the first half of 1967 there was progress in local negotiations towards a voluntary scheme. This is the point raised by the hon. and learned Member for Southport (Mr. Percival). But Blackpool Watch Committee decided in June, 1967 that it was still fundamentally opposed to the proposal. Since it was clear from Blackpool's decision that no further progress could be expected, a notice of compulsory amalgamation was issued in July, 1967. It is very difficult to see how a comprehensive amalgamation for Lancashire could have proceeded once Blackpool had taken up that most intractable position.
The formal objections lodged are conveniently summarised in paragraph 33 of the Report of the local inquiry held in November and December last year, by Mr. D. P. Croom-Johnson, Q.C. I would quote from page 15 of the Report. The first line of paragraph 33 states:
No police authority was against all amalgamation in principle.
I put it to hon. Members that it does not appear from a fair and balanced reading of that Report that there was a feeling of outrage about the principle of amalgamation.
I well understand the feelings of hon. Members whose small police forces are


threatened with amalgamation, but nevertheless that point was not pleaded with such force and fury at the inquiry itself.

Mr. Leslie Spriggs: Is my hon. Friend aware that great concern is felt by the watch committees? What is he prepared to do about this?

Mr. Morgan: My hon. Friend does not say what type of concern is felt.

Mr. Spriggs: Watch committee representation.

Mr. Morgan: I would prefer, if time allows, to deal with it separately; but if not, I am prepared to discuss it with my hon. Friend and any other hon. Members. It is a highly technical and complicated matter which involves an examination of the draft Order and also recommendations of the inquiry. I would prefer to deal with it separately.
No police authority was against amalgamation in principle, but Blackpool and Southport thought that this was not the right scheme.

Mr. Mapp: Mr. Mapp rose—

Mr. Morgan: I prefer not to give way; I am racing against time.
They thought that it would create too big a force and that until fresh legislation made it possible to combine parts of police areas and so draw police boundaries independently of existing local government boundaries, the existing forces should remain as they are.
Barrow-in-Furness, in a particular application of that view, thought, as their Member has described, that they and the Furness area of Lancashire which surrounds the borough should be combined with the Cumbria police force. The inquiry lasted for three weeks and Mr. Croom-Johnson reported in favour of the amalgamation as a whole. His conclusion, subject to a qualification as regards Barrow, which I shall deal with separately, was that the interests of police efficiency required that Blackpool and Southport police areas should be amalgamated with the Lancashire Constabulary area and that the scheme should be confirmed and should come into operation on 1st April, 1969.
In the announcement of the Home Secretary's decision to proceed with the

amalgamation, including Barrow, authorities were told that he saw no prospect of legislation being introduced within the next two years to allow the amalgamation of parts of police areas.
Another deputation was received from the North-Western County Boroughs' Association in April, 1968. Arguments were again raised against the whole scheme. This is the view expressed in the recent letter from my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East.
My hon. Friend the Home Secretary is firmly of the view that it would be quite wrong to prolong any further the situation in which a geographical county less than 80 miles long and less than 50 mile wide is policed by 13 separate police forces, most of them around 200 strong and scattered throughout the highly urban area.

Mr. Percival: Mr. Percival rose—

Mr. Morgan: I prefer not to give way. Most county boroughs concerned are surrounded either entirely by the county area or partly by the county and partly by the sea. The largest of the county borough forces is Blackpool, but this is less than 350 strong. Six of the forces have less than 200 men. Barrow is the smallest with an establishment of only 158 and, I believe, a strength of 135.
By modern police standards, all those county borough forces are far too small, even by the standard of the Royal Commission on the Police in 1962.

Mr. Peter Mahon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. On the basis which he has just mentioned of there being far too many police forces which are small in number, will not the amalgamation of so many police forces make the number far too great?

Mr. Morgan: I will try to deal with that argument in its proper context.
The standard of the Royal Commission was that the optimum size of a police force was probably 500 or upwards, and since then changes of circumstances have led the Home Secretary to amalgamate forces which have been a deal stronger than 500 men.
All the professional advantages of amalgamation—greater operational efficiency, a more rational communications


system, better promotion prospects, a more economical and flexible use of manpower, and many other benefits—were fully discussed at the local inquiry held by Mr. Croom-Johnson. He faced there the three main arguments against this proposed scheme which have been maintained by its opponents throughout.
The first is that the scheme should be delayed pending the outcome of the Report of the Royal Commission on Local Government, an argument which has been propounded by several hon. Members tonight. The second is that if there is not to be delay, Section 21 of the Police Act, 1964 should be amended to enable parts of police areas to be amalgamated, thus permitting a different pattern of mergers for the Lancashire area. The third is that the force proposed by the scheme would be too big for efficient operation. I will deal with each of those arguments.
I understand that the Report of the Royal Commission on Local Government is expected to be published early in 1969. I do not know what it is to recommend, but one thing is certain—its recommendations, whatever they may be, will not be immediately and unanimously accepted by all the interests concerned, passed into legislation and put into operation all within the short span of a year or so. The whole long and controversial history of the attempts at local government reform cannot lead one who is not excessively naïve into optimistic hopes that any such speedy outcome is to be expected. First, time will have to be allowed for consideration of the Report.

Mr. Speaker: Order. On this Order we cannot discuss the prospects of the amalgamation or reform of local government. We are discussing the amalgamatioi of certain police forces in Lancashire.

Mr. Morgan: I appreciate that I am inhibited in that respect, Mr. Speaker, but I am sure that you will allow me to say that it is a fallacy to suppose that any important changes in the local government pattern in the North-West into which the police can be fitted will come into force in the near future.
It has been made clear all along that the Home Secretary will look again at the police organisation in the light of

the pattern of local government which emerges after consideration of the Royal Commission's report. That is the answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East. The amalgamation shortly to be effected does not anticipate and does not prejudice the Royal Commission's findings in any way. We are creating no new boundaries by these proposals which will have to be undone. What we are doing is overriding some which are now there and which are operating against overall police efficiency and enabling members of all the small county borough forces to benefit from being part of a larger unit with its considerably greater resources.
To have sought powers to amend Section 21 of the Police Act to enable parts of police areas to be amalgamated would, however, have been a different matter.

Mr. Speaker: Order. On this Order we may not discuss whether we should amend Section 21 of the Police Act.

Mr. Morgan: I mentioned the matter only because it is mentioned in the Report as being one of the factors most materially affecting the decision of Mr. CroomJohnson to recommend the amalgamation.

Mr. Speaker: The Order is made under the parent Act, but the hon. Gentleman may not discuss the parent Act, as he should know.

Mr. Morgan: I accept your strictures, Mr. Speaker.
The arguments against the isolation of the North-West peninsula are not strictly relevant in the present context. It is being policed already by the county constabulary and all we are doing, in effect, is removing the boundary of a borough within it for police purposes. At the moment, there are three units, the Cumbria unit, the Lancashire Constabulary unit and the Barrow-in-Furness unit. We are reducing those from three to two.
The argument was put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow that the efficiency of this force would suffer greatly from amalgamation, and a factor which he adduced in evidence to support that claim was the very high detection rate enjoyed by the Barrow force. Yet, he was at the same time arguing that that should be amalgamated—this small force of 168 men—with the Cumbria force.

Mr. Booth: My hon. Friend is misrepresenting my argument. I do not say that the Barrow force should not be amalgamated, because this would cause efficiency to fall. What I said was that the high efficiency of Barrow meant that it was not necessary to amalgamate on that ground.

Mr. Morgan: No charge of inefficiency has been brought. Indeed, the whole argument is about efficiency in the longer term. It is a very artificial argument to quote detection rates by themselves; for one cannot talk of an area far removed from centres of dense population in terms of the very large conurbations with their dense populations. It is misleading to suggest that Mr. Croom-Johnson recommended simply that Barrow should be excluded from the scheme. He was prepared to give much weight to the professional arguments which he heard in evidence about the urgent need to amalgamate these small forces, because he recommended that Barrow should be included if the law could not be amended to enable it to be amalgamated in another way within two years.
The Home Secretary is not, in fact, going against Mr. Croom-Johnson's recommendation. Mr. Croom-Johnson recognised, and recognised properly, that this question of seeking an amendment of the law was not a matter for him, but for the Home Secretary to decide. The Home Secretary saw no prospect of legislation within two years. The argument against legislation for Barrow alone is precisely the argument against it in general terms which I have just given, namely, that local government reorganisation should be carried out as a whole, and not piecemeal.
So far as size is concerned, the new force will have an establishment of just over 7,000. The new West Yorkshire force—which came into operation on 1st October on a voluntary basis—has an establishment of over 4,500 and, apart from the Metropolitan Police, with their establishment of more than 20,000, these will be the biggest forces in England or Wales. Mr. Croom-Johnson heard a lot of argument at the public inquiry about size and, of course, this may not be the ideal size, but professional opinion is that it will be perfectly practicable and manageable. The Chief Constable will

perhaps have more difficulty in keeping direct contact with his men, but that does not mean that a good leader would not make his presence felt. The Home Secretary does accept Mr. CroomJohnson's conclusion that the proposed size is not, to quote his own words, "in itself a reason for refusing to confirm an amalgamation which is otherwise necessary".
If this draft Order is not made, the progress we have had, admittedly slowly, over the past two and a half years towards police reorganisation in the North-West, better able to meet the growing challenge of the mid-twentieth century, will be lost. The area will continue to be policed for many years by no fewer than 13 different forces and, in the face of overwhelming support by an independent inspector, following a public inquiry, the morale of the men in all the forces concerned will suffer a considerable blow. Above all, the professional police advantages which the scheme offers in the struggle against crime will, within a matter of months, be thrown away.
I would remind hon. Members that in 1964 the House charged the then Home Secretary with the duty of exercising the powers in the Police Act of that year, "in such a manner and to such extent as appears to him to be best calculated to promote the efficiency of the police"—

It being One and a half hours after Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

ADEN POLICE (MR. SALOLE)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Concannon.]

11.30 p.m.

Mr. Richard Sharpies: It is appropriate that the House should turn from discussing the problems of the police in Lancashire to discuss the problems affecting those who have retired from the police in Aden. I am grateful to have the opportunity of raising the case of my constituent Mr. Salole, who retired as chief superintendent of police in Aden in 1963 after 25 years' service to the British Crown. I should perhaps tell the House a little of the career of this remarkable man.
Mr. Salole is a Somali. He looks, and I am sure he would not mind my saying so, like a Somali. His background is Somali and he does not speak Arabic. His connection with Aden was that he was born there in 1907 because his father was an employee of Cable and Wireless and was stationed in Aden at the time. He was educated in India from the age of 13 and he worked in India for a good part of his earlier working life. He returned to Aden in 1930 to join the Aden Police.
In the Aden police he had as distinguished a career as it is possible to imagine. He lost the sight of one eye in the riots of 1947, and for his part in maintaining law and order during the difficult period, which was marked by almost continuous rioting he was awarded the Colonial Police Medal for Meritorious Service in 1949. In 1961. he was awarded the Queen's Police Medal for Meritorious Service, one of the highest awards which can be made in the police service. In 1963 he retired, after 25 years' service, when he had reached the rank of senior superintendent of police.
At that time there were only two police officers superior to him. One was the Commissioner of Police and the other was the Assistant Commissioner, both British-born officers serving in Aden. For his long service to the British Crown he was awarded a pension of &pound;807 10s. which included an ex gratia payment of &pound;95 a year in respect of the loss of his eye. Mr. Salole now lives in my constituency. For reasons which the House will understand, it was impossible for him to remain in Aden after Britain had handed over to the present Government there. It is no exaggeration to say that had he remained in Aden, he who had been one of the senior police officers, and supported the British Administration throughout the whole of the difficult period there, he would not be alive today.
Mr. Salole's pension was paid to him through the Crown Agents, to his bank in. England. This situation existed from the time he retired from the police. On 29th March, 1968 he received a printed letter from the Crown Agents to the Colonies. It says:
Dear Sir/Madam—with the "Madam" scratched out, and went on—
We have to inform you that we received instructio is to cease payment of pensions from funds of the People's Republic of South

Yemen and we regret, therefore, that we cannot continue payment of your pension.
We will write to you again if and when we are in a position to resume payment, but in the meantime if you wish to pursue the matter we can only suggest that you write direct to

The Accountant General,

The Treasury,

Aden,

People's Republic of South Yemen."

This was Mr. Salole's reward for 25 years of service to the British Crown. Mr. Salole wrote to the Crown Agents protesting, and there was a considerable amount of correspondence. Eventually, he received a small addition to his pension which was allowed by the South Yemen Government, but even that has now dried up.

Mr. Salole was advised by the Crown Agents to get in touch with the Ministry of Overseas Development, which he did. He received a reply dated 19th July, 1968, which contained these words:

With regard to the continuing payment of your pension I regret that I am unable to add anything further to my earlier letters."

This was from a civil servant whose name I will not mention.
The responsibility for such payment rests with the South Yemen Government and you will have to look to that Government for redress regarding any loss of pension.

This correspondence continued, and the last letter which Mr. Salole had from the Ministry of Overseas Development was dated 21st August this year simply repeating the same sentence:
The responsibility for such payment rests with the South Yemen Government…".
At that stage I took up the case and wrote to the Minister of Overseas Development on Mr. Salole's behalf. I sha11 refer later to the letter which I received from the Parliamentary Secretary.

After 25 years of service Mr. Salole's pension has ceased. He has not received one penny of pension since 31st May this year. What is his position now? He is aged 61 and is losing the sight of the other eye which was not injured. He works as a storeman, from which occupation his total income is &£15 a week, out of which, together with his savings, which he is using up rapidly, he supports his wife and four children of school age.

Two major questions arise. First, what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government in cases where the successor Government have defaulted and we have an


obligation to people like Mr. Salole who have spent their lives in the service of the British Crown?

The Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary have explained the Government's position about expatriates. I make no criticism of the Parliamentary Secretary. He wrote me a very full letter. Having been in his position, I can appreciate that he probably disliked having to say what he did just as much as I disliked having to do it on occasions. I will refer only to the parts of the letter which are relevant. In writing about the arrangements which were made to give loans against future payments of pension to those who were expatriates, the Parliamentary Secretary said:
The loan advances are being made to former expatriate officers only, i.e. those who were designated under the Overseas Service Aid Scheme or who were non-designated/nonindigenous officers and who were not regarded by the South Arabian Governments as being of local status. Your constituent"—
I will not mention the other person who is named—
was regarded by the local administration as being of local status and therefore he does not qualify for the grant of loan advances from British funds.

This is where the Government's case rests. When the Parliamentary Secretary replies, he will probably rely on those words.

As there is no point in going over the ground again, I trust that the Minister will give some straight answers to some important questions. First, who decides whether or not a person is of local status? I have sought to explain that Mr. Salole is of Somali origin. He is not an Arab. His connection with Aden is that his father was employed there when he was born. Secondly, is the place of Mr. Salole's birth important in this matter? We need a clear answer to this question because I have details of other cases. Thirdly, has this difficulty arisen because he was recruited in Aden; because he joined the police there and did not join, as some others did, in India, then to be sent to Aden? Fourthly, has it anything to do with his terms of reference. I have in mind the Parliamentary Secretary's letter and other correspondence.

If it is to do with his terms of reference, was it made clear to Mr. Salole

when he joined the police force in 1938 that he was joining on terms different from those applying to other people? There was no question in 1938 of handing over the government of the territory to a successor Government. Unless the Minister can produce proof to show that the position was made clear, I very much doubt whether Mr. Salole was given any indication in 1938 that he would have to look to anyone other than Her Majesty's Government, whose crown he wore on his cap, for his pension rights when he eventually came to retire after a distinguished career.

Does the decision whether or not he is entitled to be treated as an expatriate depend in any way on whether he retired before or at the time of the handing over of government to South Yemen? We need a clear answer to this question, because I have details of other cases affecting people who are very much in the position of Mr. Salole but who are in receipt of this concession, having retired after he did.

This case raises wider questions of principle. The issue is simply whether Her Majesty's Government can abandon their responsibilities to people like Mr. Salole after they have given their lives in service to the British Crown. I do not know how many people may be in the same position. There are probably not many. In any event, few of them can have had such a distinguished career. It is no good telling Mr. Salole, as he was told by the Ministry of Overseas Development, that he must make his own arrangements with the Aden Government. One cannot imagine a more heartless piece of advice. Whoever wrote that letter must have known perfectly well that there was no possibility of the Aden Government replying to Mr. Salole's letters; and he has written time and again.

We will, no doubt, hear the usual arguments from the Parliamentary Secretary. However, in the absence of a satisfactory reply from him tonight, I assure him that the matter cannot end there. What is to happen to Mr. Salole while representations are being made to the Aden Government? Is he to go on living on the savings which he accumulated during his 25 years' service? As I explained, he is receiving not one penny by way of pension. The House knows that the representations which Her


Majesty's Government are now making to the Government of Aden have little or no chance of success.

Mr. Sabole and people like him are being used as pawns in a game between two Governments. In this case the honour of the British Government is at stake--the honour to look after those who served it well. I hope that the House will take to heart what I have said because this cannot be the end of the matter. One simply cannot abandon people like Mr. Salole who have given their lives and their health to the service of the British Crown.

11.45 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Overseas Development (Mr. Albert I. Oram): The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Sharples) has spoken in eloquent and forceful terms on behalf of his constituent. I can understand the depth of feeling to which he has given expresssion, because I do not for a moment dispute the unfortunate situation in which his constituent and some others find themselves as a result of the repudiation by the Government of the Republic of South Yemen of their pension obligations.
As the hon. Member was speaking I felt that, perhaps understandably, he was directing his words at me as a representative of the British Government, but to a large extent they ought to have been directed—and perhaps he was hoping to direct them—through me to the Government of South Yemen. I am grateful, however. to the hon. Member for raising the case of his constituent, because this gives me an opportunity of explaining where we stand on the pension rights of local officials who were formerly employed by the Government of the Republic of Southern Yemen and its predecessors.
My right hon. Friend answered a Question on 24th October when he gave the House the general background to this Question and went on to deal with the particular problem of expatriate pensioners to whom we have important responsibilities. The local pensioners are a different matter. I am not fully convinced, despite the correspondence he courteously acknowledged, that the hon. Member has been really seized of the difference between expatriates and local

officers. I have a great deal of sympathy with cases like Mr. Sable's. The circumstances in which he finds himself are not, unfortunately, unique, and they illustrate the problems which arise from the Southern Yemen Government's repudiation of their obligation to indigenous pensioners.
I can appreciate that Mr. Salole feels, as the hon. Member expressed it, that he was serving the Aden Government. I do not dispute the facts the hon. Member put forward, or the distinguished nature of his constituent's career. I can understand that both the hon. Member and his constituent feel that Mr. Salole was ultimately serving the British Government. I am greatly concerned that he and others are denied the pensions they have earned and which they should be receiving from the Government of Southern Yemen.
But however much sympathy we may have for the plight of Mr. Salole and others like him and however much we appreciate the nature of that plight, it is impossible for Her Majesty's Government to ignore three essential features of our relations with the Southern Yemen Government, and with former British Dependencies generally.
The first of these principles is that overseas civil servants, whether expatriate or local, were employed by the overseas Governments concerned and not by Her Majesty's Government. Their pension rights derive from legislation passed by those Governments, and their pensions are awarded and paid by those Governments. On 26th July my right hon. Friend went into this question. I will not now go into it again. There is no doubt that that is the position upon which the Government's case in this instance rests.
The second point is that we must regard the independent Governments who have succeeded the former colonial Governments, as inheriting all their predecessors' rights and obligations and these include liability for the public service pensions. It is true that, in the circumstances leading up to the independence of Southern Yemen, our attempts to negotiate a public officers' agreement with the successor Government were unsuccessful. The fact that there was that kind of difficulty does not


relieve the Southern Yemen Government of their responsibilities in accordance with the principle that I have just described.
Thirdly, however, we have recognised a special obligation to safeguard the pensions earned by expatriates who were selected by a Secretary of State for appointment to Government posts overseas. This obligation is explained in the White Paper, Reorganisation of the Colonial Service—(Colonial No. 306—and it was supplemented by the right hon. Member for Mitcham (Mr. R. Carr), when he was Secretary for Technical Cooperation, when he gave an assurance to the Overseas Service Pensioners' Association. My right hon. Friend referred to that assurance in the House on 30th January. This undertaking covers those who were designated under the Overseas Service Aid Scheme, or who were non-designated non-indigenous officers but I emphasise that it does not extend to pensioners who are not expatriates.
Here, I should describe the situation which has arisen in Southern Yemen. My right hon. Friend explained on 24th October that, although the Southern Yemen Government paid public service benefits until 31st May, 1968, in accordance with the agreement negotiated at Geneva, they have declared their intention to default on payments falling due since then, and we have accordingly implemented our undertaking to expatriate pensioners. But—I regret this as much as the hon. Gentleman does—those who must be regarded as local—this is not disputed in the case of Mr. Salole—are excluded from this undertaking. Mr. Sable's status has been classified as South Arabian.

Mr. Sharples: This is the whole point. Mr. Sable disputes this. I tried to make that clear.

Mr. Oram: It was not made clear in the correspondence, and, in our judgment, it is certain that he is a local officer. The definition of local status, South Arabian status, is contained in the regulations under the Aden Constitution Orders of 1962 and 1964. I shall see

that the hon. Gentleman has copies setting out the definition. That is the reason why the arrangements which I have described do not embrace Mr. Sable's case.
Although the South Yemen Government have made payments after 31st May to some locally recruited pensioners resident in South Yemen, and they have done so on a scale below the legal entitlement, they have not done so for pensioners like Mr. Sable who are resident outside that country. So far as we know, there are nine pensioners of South Arabian status living in Britain, some of whom have never received any pension at all from the South Yemen Government.
Our ambassador has made representations to the South Yemen Government about these pensioners. The hon. Gentleman spoke of letters to Mr. Sable which referred him to the South Yemen Government, implying that that was as far as we went. If that were what we had done, we should be open to criticism, but it was paralleled by representations which our ambassador has been making on behalf of these pensioners. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that, if those letters are read with knowledge of the representations which were being made, the matter is put in a different light. I regret that we have not been successful in persuading the South Yemen Government to honour their obligations.
I recognise the difficulties and. indeed, the hardship which the situation has caused. But hardship and sympathy are not in themselves a justification for our assuming, whether in South Yemen or elsewhere, a responsibility towards those who are local officers in respect of the country which they served. We have the greatest sympathy, and we have done all we can. But the principle must remain firm, in our judgment, that they must look to the Government which employed them for redress. Only in respect of expatriates has help been possible, and it is necessary to draw a line between the two classes of pensioner.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at two minutes to Twelve o'clock.